#wasn't necessarily expecting the analysis

[positivelybeastly]

From the Ashes Infinity Comics #16: Pygmalion, Part 2

Let's go. I'm eager to talk about this one, because it was good.

Ahhhh, I do love it when comic books are on the nose - and I genuinely mean that. Subtext may be for cowards, as Garth Marenghi once loudly stated, but I also feel like it's just. Too subtle, for most people. You really do just end up with a load of people who don't get the message because it wasn't loud enough, who are there because the franchise is cool and not because they internalise the messages of it, and that's how you end up with racist X-Men or Star Trek fans.

By all means, get into the franchise just because it's cool! But let's engage with the themes and the narrative and the meaning, too, yeah? Trust me, it makes it better.

Anyway, the Uncanny! The adjective applied to the X-Men most commonly since their debut in 1963, the concept of the uncanny has its roots in German philosophy, and specifically the work of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling in 1837, but Beast and his mimic here correctly identify that it was popularised by Sigmund Freud's theories about psychotherapy and the human psyche, especially his 1919 essay literally titled "The Uncanny."

That being said, my first exposure to this word and its deeper meaning was in relation to Gothic fiction, and the use of supernatural figures like the vampire, in my English Literature class, where the following definition was perhaps a bit more apt: a. : seeming to have a supernatural character or origin : eerie, mysterious. b. : being beyond what is normal or expected : suggesting superhuman or supernatural powers. an uncanny sense of direction.

As a literary trope, the examination of the uncanny, liminality, and the creation of transgressive works exploring the human fascination with the taboo and what falls outside the bounds of 'normal', that which is considered both attractive and terrifying, is a very old human past time.

The X-Men, as mutants, were always meant to have this quality, though how much a writer wishes to touch on it will always vary. Compare and contrast Hickman's use of the uncanny to make Krakoa seem alien, disturbing, and strange, versus how very mundane a lot of especially late 00s X-Men was, with Utopia's focus on very War on Terror politics, and you can see just how different a vibe you get when you have a writer genuinely interested in exploring what makes mutants actually uncanny. Morrison vs. Whedon is another very good example of this dichotomy, imo. Morrison's X-Men are uncanny, and Whedon's are not. Both are good, but they have a very different feel as a result.

Anyway, enough waffling on about literary analysis!

Taking Ben Percy and Jed MacKay's lead, this version of Beast is very much more in line with his 90s or 00s self than the Defenders version he's meant to be closer to - 1985 Beast did not talk like this. That being said, Beast's use of affectation, facade, and code-switching to fit in means that it isn't really a breaking of canon, it just indicates that Hank feels that his goofball persona would be very ill-fitting for this stage of his life, and given the stresses he's under, I can't say he's necessarily wrong.

Browerian mimicry, otherwise known as automimicry, is a form of animal mimicry in which an animal will commonly imitate itself in such a way that it confuses and deflects attacks, i.e. a fish manifesting eye spots away from its actual eyes so as to misdirect a predator. But, as Hank points out, the form of mimicry on display here is somewhat more complex and involved . . .

And now we come to the first hint about what the actual conflict is going to be here - just how much of this mimic's thought processes are its own, and how much are Hank's? After all, while Hank has, historically born up under immense pressure, stress, and racial hatred before, that hasn't always been the case.

In Uncanny X-Men #8, he was one of the first mutants to experience racial hatred and a near lynching for the use of his powers in an altruistic manner, an experience which led him to nearly leave the X-Men. While he grew out of this misanthropy, it's interesting to see this trait potentially return in light of his inner conflict over his inner goodness and morality - it makes sense that Hank would question if he's only a good person when he's treated well, given his lack of faith in his intrinsic goodness and growing belief that he cannot be trusted.

So, we have to ask if this sentiment is the mimic, Hank, or both, especially given how sharp Beast is in this issue, and in MacKay's X-Men #4. Even an older, allegedly more morally degraded Beast, was more polite to similarly ignorant masses in Rosenberg's Uncanny X-Men, and yet, in this issue, Hank refers to them very unflatteringly, to say nothing of his somewhat brusque manner during his fight with the Upstarts . . .

"We're." "We."

Interesting.

I think this issue might well have given Psylocke more dialogue than all of Jed MacKay's X-Men run thus far. That being said, I'm not massively worried about her prominence and treatment, given that what she's gotten has been eminently capable, and she does have a solo series coming out soon, so it's not as though she's being particularly hard done by, I think.

Blankslate. I actually rather like that. It has a very pleasing simplicity to it, and it's both apt and unique, which is hard, given the number of existing shapeshifters that the Marvel Universe plays host to.

I do like that the instant Psylocke saw that Scott was considering field deployment of a vulnerable young moment, she locked that shit down, ASAP. We aren't having a repeat of Utopia's X-Force here, Scoot. Again, pulling at the relative lack of play Kwannon's gotten in MacKay's X-Men thus far, it's nice to see her so assertive and able to speak up against what she perceives as Scott's utilitarian tendencies.

Also, Hank continues to be incapable of sitting on a chair properly.

I really have to question what the fuck Scott thought was going to happen. Were you even listening to what Hank and Kwannon were saying, Scooter?

Hank really isn't used to having an outer monologue. It throws him, to hear the nasty things he thinks about himself spoken aloud, finished, and not left unanswered and unquestioned in his own mind.

It's also very interesting to see this fear explicitly acknowledged in even this version of Hank, given that this worry about rejection, and the ensuing bluster and humiliation, led to his violent reaction to the garbage intervention in Uncanny X-Men #600. He decided to leave rather than be made to leave, deciding that the X-Men had already elected to make him leave the team (not an unreasonable conclusion, given how determinedly shitty they treated him up until that point, and after it), and in so doing, made his worries manifest.

I've also talked before about the significance of moments where Hank doesn't talk. As a persistent prattler, it's worth noting his silences.

A Markov chain is, essentially, a statistical model of real-world processes, that often describes a sequence of possible events in which the probability of each event depends only on the state attained in the previous event, i.e. the prediction of a specific outcome after a number of specific events. Hence, a probability chain.

Here, Hank appears to have inputted data relating to his own life experiences, and the data available to him about the life experiences of his previous self, as well as, likely, his alternate reality counterparts, in an effort to discern his likelihood of turning out the same way.

While this version of Hank has substantially reduced life experiences compared to his older self, he still appears to be well versed in statistical modelling and probability mathematics. If he is behind his Prime self, it's likely only going to be for so long, given that this level of mathematics and modelling was well beyond his 1985 self, who was notoriously rusty at even his own chosen field of biophysics and genetic manipulation in New Defenders, having neglected his scientific studies in favour of, well, fun.

Prions are misfolded proteins that induce a similar misfolded state in normal variants of the same protein, leading to cellular death. Your most likely common experience of the word may be related to prion neurodegenerative diseases affecting humans and animals, such as Creutzfeldt–Jakob's disease, kuru, and mad cow disease.

While this is very impressive science, I think it skirts around the fact that Hank is essentially working on a gun that can kill him and reset him back to a more 'pleasing' version of the same person if someone he deems worthy of entrusting the gun to decides he needs resetting. This is horrific and exactly the kind of self-hating science that Hank would only ever conscience being used on him and only him, because he's like that.

This is the kind of thing that Simon Williams or Abigail Brand would beat his ass for doing, and then destroy, because no, Hank, do NOT keep the 'mind wipe me when you don't like me' serum around, it's horrible that you think so unkindly of yourself, you idiot!

I like Hank's weird little science lamp. The man can't just have a simple lava lamp like the rest of us, can he?

Oy vey.

To be continued . . . in another post, because I ran out of images right at the end, again.

[brucewaynehater101]

I have a vent fic wip that I may or may not finish so I just need to tell someone that I am...feeling so many things all the time about the consequences of the 16th birthday but...

primarily, right now, at this moment. without Robin/Bruce, Tim thought he would lose Dick and everyone else he knew through Robin. and then a little bit later when he quit for Jack, he got radio silence for Months until he became a potential victim, and even then it was just Cass stopping in to give the message and be like "I'll watch you to keep you safe 👁️👁️ ok bye" and he had actual Proof that without Robin, he would lose everyone.

and then. Dick "you're my equal (even tho I'm drastically changing your life without your knowledge or permission), you're my closest ally (even tho you don't even have a name to go out in the field to assist me as backup), I need you (even tho, as mentioned, I made a huge decision without your input because I didn't need it because I know best actually)" Grayson.

skipping over the fact that Dick didn't even have the time to say "you're fired" or anything resembling that, when Tim lost "Robin" to Damian, he felt like he lost everything else too. it didn't matter what Dick said about "equals" or "allies" or "needing". he already had Concrete Proof that it was all false. cheap words that are easily disproven do nothing in this situation, Dichard!

(disclaimer: I love and respect Dick Grayson, I just also think Dick Stopped Existing as soon as he made Damian his Robin for the most pathetic stupid illogical risky-ass excuse he could ever give for making anyone Robin (or a vigilante in general). "because he'll kill someone again". who the fuck says that?? who thinks "oh no oh god oh fuck this kid is gonna go off the rails he's gonna kill someone, I need to Put Him In A Place Of Power Over Oblivious Innocent Untrained People Who Are Expecting A Kind And Empathetic Hero To Save Them" hUH???? ok sorry, I just wanted to rant about what Tim "losing Robin" meant)

I agree with ya. Dick Grayson is fantastic, but it seems weird that he nuked his entire relationship with Tim (a very strong one that other fans have referred to them as "The Brothers") for the new kid.

Yes, Damian is a ten year old traumatized kid who just lost the dad he didn't really have the chance to get to know. Yes, Damian needed guidance, boundaries, and compassion.

But DC spent so much time and effort building up Tim and Dick's rapport only to obliterate it once the "blood son" came in (I also love Damian. This is not hate on the kid. This is confused commentary on DC's choices). It's just a strange idea, but that's also why it hurts so much when Dick does that to Tim.

Then you tie in Tim losing Robin by Dick to Tim's experiences before? Fuck. You are so right for that.

As far as the RR run, Dick could've handled Tim believing Bruce a bit better. I don't necessarily blame him for that one. I get why he wasn't supportive in the way Tim wanted, even though I would've chosen differently for my siblings.

Dick taking Robin, though? That was fucked up. I, honest to the gods, do not see how that was a justified course of action. I can understand his perspective, but it's still not okay. At all.

There's your very adequate analysis:

Robin, for Tim, is his tie to his loved ones. He has proof (twice) that without it, he does not have access to the people he cares about and his support system.

Dick said a lot of pretty words about "equals," but his actions were precisely contradictory to his "intentions."

Tim has had Robin taken from him before or had to give it up. He chose to go back despite this. He obviously feels strongly about being Robin

Damian has not proven, at this point, to be trustworthy as a vigilante (someone in power without oversight). He has instead shown use of excessive force

This isn't even going into the way he found out. That's just an extra layer.

The way Tim has repeated lost and regained Robin (even after RR) as well as his title as Red ROBIN are, to me, a sign that he's still trying to hold on. It's my belief that he would have moved onto a new title, like his predecessors, if it hadn't constantly been an unsure role.

His start was rocky as hell due to Bruce not initially wanting it. Tim had to prove himself and put himself into the costume.

He "quit" twice before it was taken from him in a traumatic way (nothing like being instilled with the fear that the position you've held for four years can suddenly be yanked out from under you without warning)

Damian and Jason both vehemently protested to him being Robin

It would make sense if all of these factors combined to Tim's unwillingness or inability to just let Robin go, especially when we factor in his reason to be Robin. Since Bruce never really gets "better" and continually falls back into bad habits, Tim needs to maintain his task of pulling Bruce back from the edge. We could also throw Jean Paul into this to further how Tim is forced to play as the barrier between a grown adult and their desire to harm others in the name of good.

So, Tim's time as Robin is marked by consistent instability while contrasted with his inherent position as Bruce's leash and the batfam fixer. While the other Robins did have times of doubt, the predecessors of Tim did not have the pervasive role insecurity with regards to Robin.

They had their big moment at the end and some smaller moments in-between, but not quite on the continous scale of Tim. Tim had three big moments and was still sucked back into Robin when Damian quit.

To be Robin is to earn Bruce's love and the ability to be part of the Wayne family. To lose Robin is the risk of losing that (at least to the perspectives of the Robins if not 100% the reality).

I'm not sure I'm articulating this accurately. Regardless, no wonder Tim clutches the title of Robin with bleeding hands no matter how much it cuts him and costs him.

[jesncin]

Caped Crusader, "Safe Diversity", and Catwoman

We're at a point where it's expected that a new incarnation of any story previously with a white-dominated cast would be reimagined with a "more diverse" cast. This can mean racebending them, genderbending them or making them queer, but for the purposes of this analysis we'll be focusing on racebends. Most of the time, executives will take the "safer" routes with diversifying their cast- pick a couple of unproblematic supporting characters to be incidentally "diverse this time". Other times, there might be "braver" takes where more prominent characters (perhaps even the main character) are racebent. This doesn't necessarily mean racebending prominent characters is an inherently better thing to do.

I've been more than critical of MAWS' portrayal of BIPOC characters but especially their Asian Lois before. Sometimes BIPOC representation is just a decorative palette-swap change for these shows. Caped Crusader however, is different. It's more complicated- but it's rooted in very similar problems. Unlike MAWS (though I can only speak for S1), CC is far more willing to take on political topics: classism, sexism, police corruption and brutality, even beauty standards in the entertainment industry! Yet, in choosing to portray these topics in their stylistically anachronistic 30s-40s set piece- it makes it so the show's reluctance to discuss race intersecting with any of these topics far more apparent.

(spoilers for all of Caped Crusader)

Take for instance, episode 2: "...And Be A Villain". The story is about Basil Karlo, a less than handsome actor who wishes his appearance wasn't holding him back from both love and playing roles saved for better looking people. He makes a deal with Jack Ellman, an experimental makeup artist who turns him into Clayface. This story is set in motion when Miss Yvonne Francis, a beautiful actress, goes missing. Miss Francis is a woman of color (brown skinned, unspecified) played by Lacey Chabert: a white actress. CC goes for a generally colorblind casting what with Stephie (a white girl) being voiced by Amari McCoy (a Black actress) but it always feels icky when a white actor voices a character of color. Prominent characters of color in CC are more accurately casted. However I do think animation should be wary of using their medium to get away with their show appearing more diverse than the actual talent behind it.

The episode's theme is pretty clear on how unfair the entertainment industry is in regards to who it prioritizes in leading roles. Basil is constantly emphasized as a tragically talented actor whose appearance is holding him back. "With your talent you should be a leading man, Basil." Yvonne says to Basil in a flashback. Meanwhile as Alfred is watching through movie clips featuring Yvonne and Basil together, he comments "while lovely to look at, Miss Francis is no Gloria Swanson." So Yvonne has the looks, but not the talent and still gets prestigious roles because that's showbiz. The only time this is weirdly inconsistent is when Yvonne calls out Basil/Clayface in the finale, saying:

"I don't believe your performance. You're chewing on scenery. Relying on makeup effects to enhance weak characterization. It's insincere, Basil. It's not real."

I honestly feel like this scene was just meant to quickly "subvert" Yvonne being a damsel in distress by having her call out Basil's acting. It's a moment that isn't reinforced by anything the episode set up. After all, according to Alfred, she's not as good an actor compared to Basil. That's supposed to be how they foil each other, so this moment feels unmotivated. Again, I get what they're going for, that Basil's performance ironically relies on his newfound appearance so much that even a bad actress like Yvonne can spot his meager acting. But it doesn't work when our protagonists were actually convinced by his imitation of others. She's still a damsel in distress character regardless of her having a bit of attitude when calling her captor out.

What I don't understand is: why make Yvonne a woman of color if this was the story you wanted to tell? It's not like they're paying homage to how her voice actress looks, after all. Why, in your story set in purposely anachronistic 30s-40s era noir, did the character who was meant to represent the epitome of "not talented but gets by the industry because of her conventional beauty and pretty privilege" a woman of color? We're missing the very obvious conversation here where Tinsel Town is a white industry with white biases to what it considers attractive. It doesn't matter how many attractive actors of color exist, they're still pigeon holed into stereotyped and often racist roles (especially back then), and have to work twice as hard to get the opportunities their white colleagues get. Why is Basil, a white man, the only one afforded a marginalized narrative when Yvonne is quite literally a woman of color right next to him? The episode is especially painful to sit through when Basil is afforded so much sympathy compared to Yvonne.

"He didn't have the right look. He didn't have the right face."

"The camera is kind to some, but cruel to others."

This is transparently a colorblind narrative. Yvonne is written and even casted as a white woman. The CC crew just decided she should be a WOC likely because "wouldn't it be neat if the beautiful actress in this story is POC" without thinking about how that would drastically change a narrative already critical of the showbiz industry based on appearances. It's not intersectional and flattens the narrative to being selective of the prejudices Tinsel Town has. This episode is a great example to what CC generally does with diversity. It's not afraid to be critical of society, but it gets oddly squeamish with discussing how race intersects with these topics- opting mostly for a palette-change type of representation.

It's not entirely fair to say CC doesn't ever touch on the topic of racism. It sort of does: if you read between the lines for why the mayor gives Jim Gordon his commissioner role, and more prominently with the Gentleman Ghost (a rich aristocrat ghost that steals from the poor, believing wealth is his right) being offended that his mansion is sold to Lucius Fox (saying "and you would sell it to rabble like this?")- racism is somewhat present in the world of CC. We see the women in this show experience misogyny, but it's ambiguous if any of their struggles are intersectional with that of race. But that's... just about it. Racism isn't discussed more than it is alluded to, whenever the writers decide it's relevant. Because of this, CC has a spectrum of hits and misses when it comes to integrating characters of color in their reimagined cast.

Here's how I would visualize that spectrum using canonized instances of Asian Lois Lane. I should emphasize that representation of people of color doesn't entail the narrative owing us "a racism arc" or what have you. This spectrum is more used to measure how much racial identity was integrated in the characterization of the character: whether that be cultural identity or history. Being a person of color isn't just "person who goes through racism".

This is how I'd personally place the prominent characters of color in CC on my "spectrum of racebends" chart. Generally most of the characters of color (whether reimagined that way or were originally POC already) are fairly harmless in how they were integrated into CC's world, but none of the characters feel bespoke as a reimagining of the character and are interchangeable with their white counterparts. To quote cartoonist Juni Ba (in a discussion on CC):

"...stripping characters of color in these time period stories of any cultural, [a]esthetic or social signifiers that’d make them true to the groups being represented. Instead they dress, act and speak very western."

In my opinion, the only character that is an exception to this is Linton Midnite (or as he's popularly known as: "Papa Midnite"). Midnite is a character so interlinked with Haitian culture and mysticism that even CC couldn't erase that aspect of his identity (important note: historically, the portrayal of Midnite since his creation is riddled in racism, but that's not my place to discuss here). Midnite at most speaks with an accent, dresses more nonconformingly compared to the western standard dress of all the other characters, and practices occultish stuff (though I don't think there was anything culturally specific in that episode, please correct me otherwise if someone has more insight!). That's a lot more cultural representation than just about any other character of color in CC. Midnite can't be changed to a white character, his African identity is too interlinked with who he is.

There are a few characters I consider in poor taste to be POC- that being Arnold Flass, Yvonne Francis (who we've covered already), and Harley Quinn (who will be getting her own post, as her case is complicated). So let's talk about cops, then.

I tend to be indifferent about media choosing to diversify cop characters because it feels like choosing the most "respectable to society" role for a marginalized character to play. Cops uphold bigoted systems of power at the end of the day, so that's a very comfortable place to represent your marginalized characters. It's why we keep getting gay or lesbian cops, which Batman media absolutely perpetuates as well with Renee Montoya. It's hard to cheer for two women of color being allowed to date and kiss in public when one of them is a cop, y'know? But this doesn't mean re-imagining cop characters doesn't have narrative merit.

In regards to Jim Gordon being reimagined as a Black cop, I'm gonna refer to La'Ron Readus' video on "Fixing the Batman's Copaganda problem" where he goes into detail about the missed potential of Black!Jim Gordon from Reeves' The Batman (2022). Generally, I felt that opportunity was missed in CC as well. While I love that Barbara Gordon is in CC, nothing about her being a WOC is integrated into this version of her. It felt like if either character was white, the story wouldn't be that different. The bigger issue here is the choice to racebend Arnold Flass- a previously white, blonde, cunningly smart, and brutally corrupt cop.

CC follows some of this in their version of Arnold Flass- he's paired with Harvey Bullock (also a corrupt cop). While Bullock is the brawns of the duo, Flass is the smarts. He's cunning and even implied to be willing to frame Bullock if the worse comes to it. It isn't an inherently bad idea to racebend a corrupt white cop into a Black cop. If the writers want to tell a story about how the police force assimilates people of color into the system and forces them to be just as if not more brutal than their white counterparts, then by all means tell that story.

But that's not what CC gave us. By rarely acknowledging race, we don't get to have a conversation or themes surrounding that delicate intersection of identities. We just have "diverse Flass". Look at these panels from Year One for example, can you imagine how Flass' casual disrespect for Gordon by constantly calling him "Jimmy" could be re-contextualized with a race change? Unlike other characters who just feel like missed opportunities for not integrating race into their characterization, Flass is an elephant in the room. To not acknowledge his race in themes of police corruption and brutality is to white wash the narrative with diverse paint.

I personally think the stronger narrative decision would have been to racebend Bullock as Black instead of Flass. Flass could still be the conniving cop, but he encourages Black!Bullock to be the more "violent brute" who does the dirty work for him. It would put a newfound racial layer to how Flass considers Bullock disposable. Then we could have some kind of commentary on how the police force encourages a system of abuse that makes even fellow POC turn on each other. It'd also make it so a certain scene would be better in optics.

I have many criticisms for the scene where Batman holds a gun to Flass in the finale of CC. It's a narratively unmotivated (see my criticisms for CC's Two Face here for elaboration) and weak moment that relies on metatextual shock value to cover up how underdeveloped this take on Batman is. But it's also just very uncomfortable optics-wise. It's a common and valid criticism that Batman as a character can very easily fall into copaganda, with his status, goals, and collaboration with the police force. In many ways, Batman is often written to be committing his own kind of vigilante police brutality.

Caped Crusader wants to be a deconstruction of a Batman tied to power and hellbent on his mission to eliminate crime. But because CC occasionally omits race from its narrative, the scene where Batman holds a gun to a Black cop-a man stripped of his ability to fight back-just falls flat for me. There's no acknowledgement in this scene that Batman basically gets to be an anonymous cop, "warning shots" and all. Batman shoots at an unarmed Black man several times. It's meant to be shocking to us how Bruce is willing to stoop to such a level and indulge in gratuitous gun violence, but it honestly hits too close to real incidents where this is racially the case for me to enjoy the narrative point of this scene.

You know a character who would be perfect for calling out Batman's many privileges? Selina Kyle. Let's talk about Caped Crusader's biggest downgrade.

I've heard just about all the arguments in favor for CC's reimagining of Catwoman and none have convinced me that this was in any way a good take on the character. I see people saying that this Catwoman is a return to her golden age roots, and there's a lot of misconception surrounding that assumption. So bear with me as looking at Catwoman's history is necessary to discuss race and how a character evolves.

Catwoman debuted in the 1940s as a jewel thief who disguised herself as an old lady. She was just called "The Cat" and would not don her more feline appearance until later. True to the mystery woman femme fatale trope she was inspired by, her backstory was left unknown for a long time. 10 years later, in Batman #62 it is revealed that after a plane accident bonked her head, the now named Selina Kyle got amnesia and went on a crime spree. Giving her leeway to reform and be an ally to Batman. This would historically inform how Selina Kyle toed the line between good and evil as an anti-hero.

Her origin would be revisited in 1983, in the Brave and the Bold #197. Although not canon to the mainline universe, it is still a crucial development for her character's history. In this story, Selina reveals that she lied about having amnesia to get out of facing punishment. Her true story was that she entered a life of crime to escape an abusive relationship with a rich man. The only loss her husband understood was material loss, loss of property, so stealing was how Selina fought back.

This crucial re-examination of her character transformed her from shenanigans inducing femme fatale, to a marginalized fighter. Shortly later in 1987 in Batman Year One, Catwoman is reimagined as a street-hardened sex worker in poverty. She is inspired by the Batman to become a vigilante for her own goals and gets annoyed that she's assumed to be his sidekick.

The moment Catwoman became marginalized by power, was the point where she became worthy of solo-character status. She was not only a compelling foil to Batman-capable of going toe to toe with him and make him question his motives even though she did not share his privilege-she could lead her own adventures reflecting a side of Gotham Bruce Wayne's perspective doesn't. She actively makes the setting of Gotham stronger because of how she's evolved as a character.

Catwoman's character would continue to evolve, with some iterations reimagining her as a latina woman and others where she's canonically bisexual.

While Catwoman has been portrayed by Black actresses before, I want to focus on the most recent and prominent iteration of a race-swapped Catwoman. When Matt Reeves' The Batman (2022) featured Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle, an explicitly biracial character within the text of the story, we see another step this character evolves. I think La'Ron Readus' video on "Why Race-Swapped Characters Are Not The Full Story" does a fantastic job of explaining why this is a narratively great race swap. To summarize (though I do encourage watching his video as he goes into depth about 2022 Batman's Jim Gordon as well among many other examples) and add analysis of my own: Selina being the byproduct of an Italian crime lord and a Black sex worker is a brilliant marriage of her original backstory (being connected to and abused by powerful men) and her modern backstory where she's poverty stricken (and tangentially related to a sex worker if we're talking about Batman Year One).

We understand why someone of her background would have an affinity for stray cats because of how she lost her mom at a young age, she is sympathetic to fellow people from the lower class, and explicitly calls out privileged white people- including Batman who attempted to over moralize Selina's partner as a sex worker.

"All anyone cares about in this place, are these white privileged assholes."

It's especially that last line that makes it so Selina's character isn't interchangeable with her white counterpart. She's a textually rich character to contrast Bruce in Batman 2022, and we can see how years of history and evolution has brought such an empathetic character to the screen. Interestingly, Readus feels that while 2022 Selina was an example of a race-swap that works, he believes it was great by coincidence, because of the miss that was Gordon's characterization in the same movie. I think with Reeves as a collaborator on Caped Crusader, that assumption was correct.

Selina in CC is back to being a rich socialite, but (unlike her Golden Age counterpart) she's not married into wealth- she's got generational wealth (with a dad serving jail time for tax evasion). Worse yet, she's taking what little remains of her money and spending it on superficially imitating the Batman to create her Catwoman persona. She even has her own reluctant Alfred, a Catmobile, the works. Selina steals things because. She likes shiny things. And is something of a kleptomaniac. Catwoman is instantly discovered to be Selina because of course she's not as good as Batman is with keeping a secret identity (another key difference from her Golden Age counterpart, whose backstory was shrouded in mystery for a decade).

It is laughable to me that CC touts that their version of Harley Quinn has an origin of her own outside of the Joker, only to turn around and make a Catwoman that is completely tied to copying a man as her origin (did they decide Harley's goofyness as a character needed to be replicated in Selina for some reason? In their supposed dark and edgy show?). What a strange choice to fixate on the part in Year One where Selina didn't like being mistaken for Batman's assistant despite being inspired by him and turn it into a quirky bit. It feels like such a regressive take that frames Selina as a sillier, whimsical version of Bruce that just spends money on a whim because women just aren't smart enough to know how to keep track of their money. They're too busy looking for shiny things to steal. The fact that both 2022 Batman and CC have a scene where Selina is looking through her many bills she's yet to pay is wild to me. How am I supposed to care for a Selina that has the expendable wealth to create a Catwoman costume, car, and gadgets, but delay paying her maid? One of these versions of Selina is far more sympathetic than the other.

Again, I get what CC is going for. Batman is characterized to be hellbent on catching criminals, Catwoman is supposed to serve as some kind of reflection of his obsession. They're both self destructive in their goals, but one is vengeance and the other is chasing thrills. But is that really as interesting a foil as having Catwoman be marginalized, just as skilled, and making Batman second guess himself? Is it a take that strengthens Gotham as a setting by shedding light on its lower class characters? Is it a take that makes her worth revisiting as a perpetual rogue and not a one off episode where's she's basically a shenanigans-inducing nuisance to Batman? Evolved takes on Catwoman have talked about her desire to seek thrills and paired it with how she dismantles power. So it's not like CC's take is particularly unique, it just lacks all the depth that usually surrounds Selina's thrill seeking.

In a show that is frankly desperate to make it so Bruce doesn't have a personal relationship to his rogues gallery because he's too busy being "A cold, remorseless avenger of evil, seemingly more machine than man. Forged in the fire of tragedy, every fiber of his being is dedicated to the eradication of crime." (according to promo) that's how we end up with Barbara as the foil and humanity to both Harvey Dent and Harley Quinn. How the show focuses on the police force more than Bruce. It feels especially pointed that Catwoman is characterized this way. When she doesn't contrast Bruce, she becomes less personal to him as a character that is poverty stricken but still matches up to him in skill. She can't challenge him or his worldview, he can't find her fascinating as an equal, all of their chemistry and intrigue is erased.

All this to say that of the characters revealed for CC, I was honestly surprised that Selina wasn't one of the many characters racebent. CC followed up on a Black Jim and Barbara Gordon, two characters that have been race swapped before in previous media. Most prominently! Harley is Asian in this iteration, something never done before. So why is it that Selina doesn't follow up on the many times she's been portrayed by Black actresses?

It's because it's an actual good racebend if written well. It wouldn't be a "safe" racebend because writing Selina this way means you'd have to acknowledge racism, and it would be much more noticeable if you didn't. There is no canonized version of Asian Lois Lane that parallels her relationship to Superman as an immigrant. But there is a version of Selina as a Black woman who directly calls out white people and is aware of systemic power. It's in something as prominent and mainstream as Matt Reeves' 2022 Batman. So instead it just reads as cowardice to me that CC couldn't follow up on this evolution of Selina.

Not only does it weaken Catwoman and Batman's relationship to regress Selina this way, but it actively weakens Gotham as a setting and the very themes of Caped Crusader. I personally think all the energy that went into Harley Quinn should have been shared with (or straight up gone to) Selina Kyle. Because unlike CC's take on Harley, the way Selina Kyle's marginalization intersects with race and queerness would have actually critiqued Gotham's class corruption effectively. As a Black queer woman, Selina would be among the most vulnerable people in Gotham. We don't have prominent characters in CC that truly reflect the lower class, there are these unnamed characters Harvey Dent sits next to on a train. There are some orphans with Batfam names. A proper Catwoman reimagining that takes advantage of her evolution would have filled this gap in their narrative.

But that's not how "safe diversity" works. CC would rather racebend and canonize the queerness of a character like their take on Harley Quinn. A WOC who gets to kiss a cop and call out powerful men, but not in a way that makes white people uncomfortable.

If I could edit the Sandman quote that "The great stories will always return to their original forms" for Superheroes, I'd say "The great stories will always return to their most resonant forms" because without iterations we don't get characters like the Kents, Alfred or Catwoman as we know her today. Classics are good to look to, but we like these characters because they evolve. In my opinion, none of CC's takes on these characters of color feel resonant. They're not definitive to the level of Mister Freeze's tragic love story in BTAS, among many standout narrative choices in BTAS that continue across media iterations.

In my opinion, CC isn't as thoroughly clumsy as MAWS is in regards to POC representation and race-swaps (all characters of color in MAWS get put in the left side of that chart I made. In the Sunken Place. Where they all Missed The Movement). However, I can't help but see Caped Crusader's take on the world of Gotham as nothing more than an anecdote in the evolution of Batman's story for the modern era. "It's BTAS but superficially more diverse and with less compelling narrative choices."

[missycolorful]

I'm on the fence about a lot of the "glass child" discussion because where I agree with some points that are made and enjoy the in depth analysis, I've come to severely disagree with others. Mostly because the internet is the internet, and the nuanced discussion has lost that nuance.

The reason this whole thing blew up (though it's been a concern for a while, certainly) was when Phil explained why he felt he needed to save Tallulah first before Chayanne. And you could tell Philza was trending cautious waters with his wording - he never wanted to say "oh, Chayanne's a chad, he'll get over it." With his wording, he recognized that neither were necessarily fine, but he still felt it necessary to prioritize one over the other because of one of his kid's big issues: Tallulah has abandonment issues. Maybe they're not as bad now since the "official adoption," but it certainly shouldn't be disregarded. But Phil remembers how much Tallulah hates being left alone, and wanted to make sure she wasn't in that situation long. Phil knew at the of the day, that Chayanne had no severe abandonment issues (that we are aware of), hence him saying he'd be okay "a bit longer." The prioritization is still there, and the Death family still has much to talk about, but the fandom's reactions felt a bit too... harsh, a bit too severe. They'd make it sound like Phil didn't consider Chayanne's feelings at all or that he thought Chayanne was totally going to be 100% okay with being alone forever and ever. When there's more to it than that, and ultimately, Phil was stuck making a decision in a lose-lose situation, and he knew that.

But a lot of people seem to focus solely on this moment, and let it epitomize the entirety of the Death Family's relationship and struggles. When, if anything, there's additional moments from yesterday's stream alone that I think show some slow growth in Philza's parenting when it comes to him being overprotective of Tallulah and him expecting a protector/warrior out of Chayanne.

Because if Phil really thought Chayanne was a ruthless warrior who can handle anything and be fine and get over it, he'd have let Chayanne immediately join them in their journey of saving Richarlyson. Like "If we've got Chayanne with us, nothing can hold us back" or something. But he didn't. He wanted both of his children to stay back, to stay safe. But his kids insisted on joining, even if just for emotional support. And if Phil really was completely stuck in his old ways, he'd say the old "Chayanne protect your sister" when the mobs starting showing up, or hell, even before that. But that never once happens. Both of his kids fight, and he trusted that they could both handle themselves since they insisted on coming along, though you can see him check on both of his kids once or twice during the fight. If this becomes a persistent thing, it shows great growth in Phil's character when it comes to being overprotective of his daughter and having his son prioritize her safety above all else. It's become more of "keep an eye on each other," which is definitely the preferrable kind of thinking!

And again, I emphasize that singular moments should not be the sole focus of these discussion. Rather, the overall actions throughout should be talked about. And honestly, Phil made sure that a lot of his focus was divided between both of his children throughout yesterday. When Chayanne decided to stay behind while the others went to the beach event to keep an eye on an AFK Tubbo, Phil decided to "hang about with you, kid, it's alright," even when Tallulah was long gone. Like, he wasn't going to let his kid sit alone like that waiting! Or when he got the llama plushie during the treasure hunt, I'd honestly have expected him to immediately give it to Tallulah because animals=Tallulah, I guess. But he asked them both which of them would have liked it more, a genuine attempt to make sure neither felt left out in receiving the gift. Yes, these, too, are small moments, but if we wanna have a discussion about these relationships, all these moments should at least be considered, not just the negatives.

And to me, the kind of consensus to make in these scenarios is that the situation at hand is... complicated. Like, Phil's parenting is flawed, I'd be a fool to say otherwise. All parenting is inherently flawed, that's basic psychology or... just how humans work. However, through his faults, he tries everything he is able to to do best by these kids. So, with all these moments and more, it never sat right with me to say Phil neglects Chayanne. I can almost see the case for "emotional neglect" a bit more, but even then, I find some fault in that thinking. Yes, qPhil is neurodivergent af, so he doesn't get emotional context clues and needs these discussion to be upfront in his face (which I already went into depth here regarding the relationship these two have). Put simply, any "emotional neglect" Chayanne feels isn't necessarily from Phil prioritizing Tallulah, but more so where Tallulah is more open with her feelings which makes it easier for Phil to talk to her about them, Chayanne has rarely ever been someone who opens up about feelings, and when you couple that with Phil's lack of emotional intelligence, these issues clash. However, it's important to note that a while ago, Chayanne had an open dialogue with Philza about Tubbo's death and how it affected him, and Phil was responsive to it. It'd be one thing if he told Chay to get over it, but no, he was very honest and kind to Chayanne during their talk. And afterward, Phil suggested for Chayanne that, if he ever needs to talk, to have them sit at the pier outside of their house. He extended an offering to Chayanne for emotional discussions. It was a great way for both of these people who are terrible at talking about their emotions to come together and talk. It highlights how Phil is very much okay with talking to Chayanne on an emotional level, and he has, and he will continue to be. They're just... both bad at it, sadly.

Finally, I think it's important to clarify what a glass child actually is, and if it fits the current narrative. A glass child is a child who is overlooked when their sibling is facing some sort of disability that makes the parent give the sibling their full attention, and often has the glass child help out a lot. Initially, Tallulah very much needed extra care due to her "asthma" and the fact she wasn't a great fighter who could protect herself. Hence why Phil and Chayanne were so overprotective of her and put a lot of focus on her. And for the longest time, Chayanne was okay with it, because she needed that help to survive on this hellish island. It's just that over time, things changed. These characters changed.

So it's not really like that for Tallulah now, is it? Her asthma is no longer as bad (it still happens, though!), and she's gained a lot of fighting experience over time. She can hold her own in a fight. And Phil no longer keeps that much of a paranoid eye on her; i.e. again, yesterday's stream where, even when they were fighting end monsters, he never shouted for her to get away or for Chayanne to protect her. In the early days, if Tallulah was even allowed to join, he'd have her stand back and ask Chayanne to keep an eye on her. But that doesn't happen here.

So nowadays? No, I don't think Chayanne could be considered a glass child. Because those disabilities aren't as much of a hindrance for Tallulah as they used to, and Phil isn't as paranoid about them as before. I think the effects are still there, in a way, but it doesn't fit where the characters currently stand. Ultimately, I think there are several reasons as to why things are as they are even if Chayanne may not be a glass child in the present. The big one being that Phil's not entirely adapted to the changes his children have gone through.

Especially after Purgatory, his children have gone through a lot and changed in the process; Tallulah became more independent, and Chayanne kind of being tired of being a warrior and needing more emotional support. And since he wasn't there to witness that change and only saw the aftermath, I think it's a struggle for him to come to terms with them. However, that doesn't mean he's entirely set in old ways. He's trained Tallulah on PVP, and again, he's allowed her to participate in fights without being super worried. And as I mentioned, he has extended a branch for Chayanne to be more open with his feelings. These are just starts, certainly, but it means that Phil is open to adapting and helping both of his kids in any way they need. He just has to figure out what they need.

And let me be clear: I'm not disregarding the flaws in q!Phil's parenting. They exist, and Chayanne really needs to have an open discussion about how his emotional needs haven't quite been met as of recent, and Phil needs to be more open to have emotional discussions with Chayanne, even if to them, that's like pulling teeth. There's changes and improvements that need to be made. However, in talking about the negatives, it just seems like people think that's all there is. No, these flaws in Phil's parenting doesn't make him a bad parent. Because there are plenty of positives, plenty of decent growth here. There's love and respect and everything in this family. q!Phil is genuinely doing his best in a very difficult scenario: living on an island that is set on killing the eggs, and being a parent of two while basically being a single parent all while struggling with your own traumas. that's going to come with obstacles, it's inevitable, but what's also inevitable is how this family will work through them, and come out of this better than before.

[charles-leclerc-official]

2024 China Grand Prix Race Analysis

Here is my full analysis of the 2024 Chinese Grand prix. I already covered the sprint in a separate post here.

The important thing to keep in mind about this weekend is that the Chinese track was a very unique surface. It caused a lot of unusual grip problems for many of the top teams. I think as a whole that this race saw some outlier results as far as car behavior goes.

Table of Contents Stake - Zhou - Valtteri Ferrari - Start - Charles: his race, vs Lando - Carlos - Data Analysis Mclaren - Lando - Oscar - Data Analysis Penalties - Logan - Kevin - Daniel - Lance VCARB Aston Martin Red Bull - Checo Final Thoughts

Stake

Zhou

I usually start these with Ferrari. However this is a special occasion. So we are starting the analysis by celebrating Zhou and his performance this weekend.

This was the first Chinese Grand Prix in Formula 1 history with a Chinese driver racing on track. Zhou Guanyu made history and considering the car he's in he gave a good performance for the home crowd. Between qualifying 10th in the sprint, making some pretty good overtakes during the race, and carrying his team after Valtteri's DNF it was a pretty good weekend all around.

It was so nice to see all of the home support for Zhou. He was given an honorary spot at parc fermé after the race, and I am so glad they did something special to highlight this moment for him and the country he is representing in F1.

Zhou driving this weekend really was the highlight. This was only ever going to happen once in F1. Glad I was here to see it.

Valtteri unfortunately suffered a power unit failure and had to retire from the race. No damage to the car. This did bring out the yellow flag and a VSC. And when the marshals were unable to roll the car off the track quickly enough it upgraded to a full safety car(don’t worry we will be coming back to this)

He was looking pretty good in the car until that point, actually getting close to the points. I think we might see Stake in the points this year if they ever get their pit stops under control.

Ferrari

Ferrari's race was probably the weakest for the team so far this season. It wasn't really a surprise though. The cooler temperatures and inconsistent track surface were not ideal for the SF24.

Charles started in P6 and finished P4, Carlos started P7 and finished P5.

I do consider this not to be indicative of any downward trend for Ferrari. It was pretty predictable and it did not reveal any issues in the SF-24 we weren't already aware of (tyre warming)

Ferrari did say that they sacrificed more in qualifying in favor of a better race setup. And I don't think this was necessarily a bad idea. It's impossible to say if a different setup might have put them higher and if they have been able to defend with that setup. Going for a more race focused setup and relying on the better tyre deg to be able to allow for overtaking is a pretty good plan, especially if they didn't think they could get much more out of qualifying.

This did mean that we got to see some proper overtakes in the SF-24 from Charles and that is something we just haven't seen a lot of this season so far. So seeing how it handles in that regard was good.

So the big question is, why did Ferrari suddenly end up behind a Mclaren when Ferrari have been easily beating them all season?

Well there are a few factors:

- Ferrari struggled this weekend with grip and failed to find the best balance in the car to maximize top speeds. They did sacrifice some downforce in favor of speed during the race but I don't think it was enough. It didn't do enough to help the top speeds and it sacrificed grip so we ended up a weird middle ground that didn't optimize either problem. This track surface really made it so hard to figure out the right direction for setup.

- Mclaren(Lando) were stronger than expected. Lando was really the one pulling performance out of that car.

I will point out some key areas on this in the data analysis section as well.

Race Start

The most notable thing about Ferrari’s race was the start, when Carlos compromised his and Charles’ start by attacking right into turn 1. This forced Charles to have to defend(something he should not have to do right off the race start from his own teammate who started behind) and this resulted in them both immediately losing a place to Russell. This was a place they both had to fight to make up.

Again, this kind of thing isn’t good when compromising the results for the whole team is the result.

Footage Analysis

Just so we are clear about who is responsible for the loss of placement I want to show the footage from this start. This is from Carlos' driver cam footage as it most clearly shows what happened.

Charles starts P6 with Carlos behind him in P7. George is behind them in P8.

Into turn 1 Charles has the inside line, very clearly. Carlos has the outside line into the turn, this is fine. Charles is also clearly ahead.

Carlos pushes inside more, putting pressure on Charles. Notice how much closer Carlos got and how much space he left on the outside(another vulnerability he left open)

Charles pushes Carlos back(to defend which he has to do if attacked especially into a crowded corner like that a the race start)

Charles then took full position in front of Carlos, and this allowed George to slip past both of them on the inside line.

Because Carlos forced Charles to defend George was able to take that inside line that Charles had and passed both of them, dropping Charles and Carlos down a place.

Charles cannot defend both the outside and inside line on his own. He defended against the car that put pressure on him first. His teammate should not be the main one he has to defend team track position against.

Carlos compromised Charles' ability to defend position against George(which is the priority, he's on a rival team that is more important than racing between teammates)

Again if he is attacked Charles has to defend, why would he give up the place to the teammate he was faster than? Nothing would have happened if Carlos hadn’t pulled this move. Charles would have kept George behind and they might have been able to overtake earlier in the race and gain one more position, because they lost a full position to George this early they had to take that back before they could make progress climbing further up the field.

Carlos

This was Carlos' weakest performance so far this year. He compromised the race start for himself and Ferrari causing them both to lose placement immediately. Then he was unable to overtake. The only real overtakes he's pulled off were on cars with seriously compromised brakes.

He struggled with grip and tyres more than Charles. They both had issues in this area but it was more noticeable in his performance.

Charles finished 10.36 seconds ahead of his teammate who was directly behind him in the final 13 laps this race. And that gap can be explained by the fact Carlos was stuck behind Fernando for more laps(as well as a pit stop), however once he got into clean air he did not make up any time at all, his pace didn’t gain on Charles at all with the clean air. A gap in pace that big between teammates is concerning(at least for Carlos) It may be due to his personal choice of setup, or tyre management, or grip in the track. Given that he had more issues with grip on this track I am thinking that was a factor. He lost most of his time on turns 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10.

Edit: also Carlos did pit under normal conditions while Charles pitted under the safety car, this saved Charles some time(aprox 7-8 seconds), however the main point stands that Carlos did not make any progress closing the gap between them.

Charles

Charles' overtakes climbing up the field really saved Ferrari's race. Starting off by losing a position he climbed up places pulling some really clean overtakes and also helping his teammate through.

It was great to see him doing some overtaking in this car, he hasn't been in the position to do much of that due to track position etc in previous races. SF-24 looked good on that front in his hands.

Charles mentioned the lack of speed on straights, and this is due to the fact he wasn't able to gain on Lando in those sections(when he should have) this is due to the less than optimal downforce balance Ferrari went with this weekend(again I don't this is anything terribly concerning, this was a hard track to get that right on)

Overall Charles ran a really good race, obviously not the results he wanted but he extremely optimistic about the upgrades and that they will address some of the current limitations of the SF-24.

Data Analysis

I want to compare Charles and Lando's pace to highlight where Mclaren had the edge on Ferrari in this race. Charles was the fastest Ferrari this weekend and Lando was the fastest Mclaren.

First here is a breakdown of the fastest lap both driver's set.

Lando's straight line speed was really a big factor in keeping him ahead. That plus the fact he was consistently strong in sector 2.

And here is a look at the overall race pace between the two.

Ignore the mess in the middle, that curve is just correcting a slope for the outlier laps due to yellow flag and safety car conditions. It's not important here.

Lando had the edge on Charles almost the entire race. Until the end on the old hards.

What is important is that Lando had the pace on the new hards. Charles didn’t have the time to catch Lando once he managed to gain the places. He probably would have without the yellow flags and if track placement was better. The point being that Ferrari’s pace was off this weekend but it wasn’t as bad as it looked on track, there were other factors at play.

I think this result was a combination of a sub-optimal setup for this track on Ferrari's part on top of the fact this wasn't Ferrari’s strongest track, and Mclaren getting things right for Lando. Also some fairly solid driving from Lando.

Now I want to compare Charles' and Carlos' fastest laps and pace. This was the biggest gap in performance we've seen so far this year between the two Ferraris. Some of that I will attribute to the fact this track was weird as far as track surface goes, but such a big difference between teammates like this means it wasn't just the car or the track surface. While both were not great with grip or setup this weekend one outperformed the other by a decent margin.

Here is a look at Charles' and Carlos' fastest laps.

Charles having better straight line speed consistently and putting in a strong sector three is what put him ahead of Carlos and kept him there for the entire race.

Now here is the full race pace.

Again remember to ignore the weird lines in the middle that is just the graphing tool not able to create a good slope for all the safety car laps.

But you can see that Charles' pace was better the entire race, on both the medium and the hard tyres.

I don't think there was a lot more to get out of this weekend for Ferrari. It's possible managing the pits a little differently would have gotten Charles up to third but with the yellow flag chaos It was really difficult to gauge in real time when the best time to pit was. I think the pit management was good. We can look back and go "oh we could have gained a place here" So I have no issues there.

Hopefully that clears up some questions about Ferrari's overall race and car performance this weekend.

Overall this was still decent points for the constructors’ and we saw some good racing from Charles. I do fully believe we will be seeing Ferrari come back stronger in Miami.

Mclaren

Why was Mclaren, specifically Lando, so strong this weekend?

Well it's unclear.

They have had the clear #3 car so far this season. So I think that it's a combination of this not being a strong track for Ferrari and some conditions that favored their car that put them ahead.

No one, not even Mclaren expected this so I really think it seems like it comes down to this track being better for them than expected and Lando specifically being tuned into the track. Like after practice Lando was not feeling confident(his words) and the team were also not making any promises. I don’t think they were sandbagging, I think this genuinely all came together for them. 

Now it’s clear that Lando would have finished P3 behind Checo if it were not for the luck/strategy(a little of both they timed that well, but also had to get lucky with Red Bull timing) with the pits. Red Bull lost track position to Lando when they pitted Checo and they were unable to take it back. If Red Bull had timed their stop better Lando would have been P3 because his pace was not going to catch Checo if he was ahead.

So the P2 is due to some good driving on Lando’s part and Red Bull giving up track position and failing to recover it.

Oscar struggled more on this track. However he wasn't far outside where we've seen him in other races and for Mclaren in general. So he wasn’t under-performing, Lando was over performing. I also want to note that Oscar was slightly damaged during the crash between Lance and Dani, Dani's front wing tapped the rear of his car and there may have been a small amount of damage, important to note as he may have been compromised on pace due to this.

Data Analysis

Comparison of Lando and Checo’s pace

The first half of the race isn’t as important, the graph is very odd in the middle due to all of the outlier laps caused by the yellow flags, so that is not important. What I want to point out is that Lando was on the same pace as Checo(or slightly better) for those first 6 laps after the race started again when all the yellow flags were done, but after that Checo was faster until the end of the race. Not enough to catch Lando, but enough that Lando would not have been able to pass him if he hadn’t had track position.

Now here is a quick look at Lando and Oscar's pace.

There isn't a ton to dissect here, Lando was faster the entire race, by a pretty big margin on the hards especially. Given that a lot of drivers this race had issues managing deg on the hards I think that second stint gap really came down to tyre management, an area where Oscar is still improving.

Here is a look at their fastest laps to really see where Lando was making those bigger gains and where Oscar was struggling.

One thing that I find interesting is that Oscar's fastest lap had a section of DRS, Lando's didn't and Lando was still a full second faster. Just a really solid lap from Lando all around. His strength in sector 2 is what really gave him an edge all race.

Overall this was Mclaren’s best finish, but their strongest weekend overall so far this season is still Australia(because both drivers had a strong finish not just one)

Penalties and Incidents

Welcome to the “everyone gets a penalty!” section of the analysis. This was a mess to unravel. After reviewing the footage and reading the stewards judgements as well as the driver and teams statements I have come to a lot of the same conclusions as the stewards. 

The middle of this race was a mess. One yellow flag had just ended before another had to be brought out again. 

There were two yellow flags this race, the first after Valtteri DNF'ed and the second due to multiple incidents right after the end of the first yellow flag. 

My biggest critique is that the VSC was deployed weirdly late. They seemed about 10 to 20 seconds off in calling for one, and that is concerning. A driver on the side of the track is at risk, so it’s important to make sure a race is slowed immediately.

Logan: overtook under safety car conditions after the VSC was enacted when Valtteri’s power unit failed. Nico was coming out of the pitlane as Logan was coming down the straight, Nico managed to barely exit in front of Logan, but Logan’s faster momentum into turn 1 put him ahead of Nico, and thus he overtook under a yellow flag. Time penalty and license points is an appropriate penalty. I have no idea why his team didn’t get him to slow down more. They said they missed Nico, which I really don't know how. Lack of track observation. This was a failure of the team as much as it was sloppy on Logan's part. I think he would have slowed more had the team actually noticed this sooner.

Kevin: Kevin made contact with Yuki going out of turn 6 right after the race restart. He broke late and made contact with Yuki’s rear wheel and this led to a tyre puncture. Yuki had to retire from the race. Kevin was clearly at fault here, he failed to brake when catching Yuki.

Daniel: Dani was penalized for overtaking under a yellow flag and a safety car. He did this deliberately because Nico took a place from him and he thought it was okay to take that spot back. However he should have waited for the race to resume under green light conditions before doing that. He knows better. What happened with Nico is a little murky as far as why he took a position and why he did not get penalized. I think it's because it was right before the safety car but the FIA reporting on that isn't clear.

Lance: At turn 14 Lance rear ended Daniel after the first safety car had ended they were waiting on Max to restart the race. Max was leading the race and setting the pace until proper racing speeds could resume. Lance is at fault here, it’s that simple. This was seriously negligent driving on his part. I really have no idea what he was doing but no competent driver does this. I will agree with Oscar in the sentiment that everyone was crowded together, only one person crashed into another car in that scenario. 

“Yes, but not everyone decided to crash into each other.” - Oscar 

Lance argued that it was the concertina effect, and said the stewards should account for that. This is a weak argument at best. The concertina effect is to describe car behavior on track, it isn’t an excuse. Going into a corner a driver who is supposedly one of the best in the world should know how to account for that effect. The fact is that he was going too fast into that corner and not paying attention to the car in front of him.  

Furthermore his lack of accountability and attempts to blame everyone but himself for the incident is not a good look. He is very clearly in the wrong here. I think that the penalty he received might be on the gentle side of things as well. Personally I would have liked to see a 20 second time penalty for that, or a grid penalty. 

I agree with Dani’s statement that Lance should have only been paying attention to the car in front of him. He clearly wasn’t doing that, or at least not well enough. He appears to be looking at Max and Oscar waiting for Max to restart the race. But that is not where he should have been looking. Additionally Dani pointed out that Lance’s speed there was too much, he put half his car under Dani, that’s not the concertina effect, that is going too fast. 

Dani of course is heated, and I feel that for him, he DNF'ed because of the carelessness of another driver through no real fault of his own. I don’t think continuing to argue is good on either side, but he has every right to be mad, especially when the offending driver refuses to admit his fault. Two DNFs in a row is hard for any driver. Lance really cost him a lot. 

This isn’t just sloppy driving on Lance’s part, it's outright negligent.

VCARB

Quick note about VCARB. Dani was on track for his best performance all year this weekend. Which makes the DNF all the more upsetting. Yuki struggled with this track all weekend, seems he was not feeling this track or that car. I will say his performance seems like an anomaly compared with the rest of his season so far so I don’t think it’s cause for concern for future races. 

VCARB as a team were obviously the worst off this weekend with both driver’s DNF'ing at no fault of their own.

Aston Martin

I already covered Lance, so I want to just quickly mention that Fernando was on fire this weekend. He was defending, and had that car in places it really had no business being. His recovery from the close spin, the defending, the overtakes. He really is just continuing to show his skill and experience, and he overall had one of the best drives of the entire race.

Red Bull

Max won the race, and it was a pretty clean race for him, which is amusing due to the utter chaos happening behind him. First time he has won at this track, so that is another track conquered by Max. Well done Max!

Sergio

Checo’s race wasn’t actually that bad. He was comfortably in P2 until Red Bull gave up track position and he wasn’t able to recover the place from Lando. I already compared the pace between those two. But I think it’s pretty clear that he would have been P2 were it not for the pits. If he has position he has the pace to keep the spot. However he does not have the same pace Max has in the RB20 to take lost positions back if the car ahead has similar pace. 

I also want to note here that there were a few corners where it was pointed out that Alpine and Williams were outperforming Ferrari on. However taking a look at the data it wasn’t just Ferrari. Pierre was literally faster than Max in that corner consistently. What this tells me is that something about the unusual grip of this track was not suited to any of the fastest cars. So it’s not a Ferrari problem, or a Red Bull problem, it’s just highlighting an unusual quirk of the track that no one really figured out this weekend.

Here is a fastest lap comparison of Pierre and Max. Obviously Max is the best driver in the best car, so I think this just highlights my point about certain corners especially turns 1, 2, and 3. There was something off there that gave the edge to some midfield cars are far as grip goes. All top cars struggled for speed on those turns and I think it was due to weird track surface conditions.

Final Thoughts

This was the most chaotic race of the season. Hopefully we have a penalty free race next time.

See you when I return with Miami GP analysis!

[mellosdrawings]

Was playing through ignihyde chapter and I cam across the part where Leona told Jamil off abojt his behavior essentially saying Jamil was useless and not needed to do stuff. Jamil most likely didn’t understand where Leona was coming from. Cause Leona isn’t as “weak” or “unaware” as Kalim. So he didn’t need the protection of Jamil.

Leona was also kinda wrong for the way he delivered it. And it was also covered around with insults

Where I’m getting at is what if Jamil still lingers on with what Leona says and kinda backs off or feels useless around Leona. Kinda being more awkward cause he realized what Leona meant

Some angst for the ship skdndfjsjsjs hope this makes sense 🌸

Ok so, you probably expected some comic/fic ideas about this, but their dynamic during the STYX hellscape had me obsessed for months and you unlocked it all with that ask. It won't be necessarily shippy but it's a long rambling analysis.

ALL THE SPOILERS FOR BOOK 6 AFTER THE CUT!

Their dynamic is so terrible (/pos), I wasn't expecting them to get along the least (honestly thought Riddle and Azul would throw hands at some point, I've also obsessed on their over-confident/under-confident dynamic but that'sfor another time), but in retrospect it makes sense.

I always find Jamil's behavior to be cringe but there are reasons for it. Really he's the one who struggles the most (not counting Idia) during this chapter.

He's the only Vice Housewarden in the group, and also a servant. When it comes to choosing the groups he doesn't give his opinion at all and just goes where there's still place (with Leona) and then rely entirely on his habits and upbringing with him. His role is to protect the fancy person that accompanies him. Usually it's Kalim, but here it's an actual prince who could rain hell on the Asim should he get wounded while under Jamil’s charge.

Jamil thinks about his duty first, that's why he so overbearing until Leona tells him off.

Because Leona isn't Kalim. He’s a lazy twat (/affectionate) but he can also be very independent and he’s probably one of the strongest mages in NRC. He doesn't need Jamil to protect him. If anything he should be the one protecting Jamil considering he is younger and less experimented. (Plus Leona has his pride despite the laziness)

While Jamil thinks of his duties, Leona uses situational logic. They're in a dangerous position where they don't have time to play master and subordinate, it'd be a hassle if Jamil gets wounded.

And it does become a hassle when he gets wounded.

Seriously their dynamic was good.

But also Leona is terrible at communicating. It's a running theme that he expects others to understand his meaning from minimal explanations. For Jamil who is used to Kalim who is rather transparent with his needs and wants, that's a difficulty to tackle.

Add to that the fact that Leona can't help but rile others with his words and you quickly have a Jamil who doubts himself and starts to put himself down.

Again.

Because he's always put down. And this time by an actual royalty.

Like, yeah, Leona was a dick to him and didn't consider the pressure of duty Jamil constantly has on his shoulders. But also... he wasn't wrong. Jamil puts himself down even without external pressure. He's all talk but the only time he actually did something was when he overblotted. During Book 5 he showed no change in behavior except to accept the spotlight when handed (and even then his first reflex was to put Kalim forward, because that's what he's always done.)

While terribly worded and mostly unaware of Jamil's actual situation, Leona was right to set Jamil straight. He could do more. He should do more.

And Leona sees himself in Jamil. That's the moment when you get a glimpse of actual N2 squad. Leona knows they're both constantly second, but where he has no exit door, he sees one for Jamil. He might not stay a servant his whole life. Especially since Kalim is very fond of Jamil. It might take time, but Jamil might still have an exit door to his freedom. (And if Jamil ends up marrying Leona the exit door becomes glaringly obvious)

I like to start the LeoJami relationship right after this book precisely because there's no way Leona’s words didn't kick the ants' nest inside Jamil’s brain, and because Leona shows genuine interest (and a smidgen of care) for Jamil.

And yes, despite Leona cheering him up in his own way by the end of the chapter, he still said a lot of harsh words. Jamil is a notorious overthinker, he would probably alternate between the "I have more potential to growth than others" and "I'm completely useless and would fail to do my job if I stay that way, which would have repercussions on me and my family".

Leona sees potential in him. That's actually huge, you know? So far the only ones who did were Azul, Vil (about dancing and singing at least), and maybe Kalim? But here you have a prince making him understand he's got potential.

Their relationship after STYX is definitely a mess that can turn angsty really fast on Jamil's end, I agree with you. But sometimes you need to break a rock to show its shiny insides. You can get from this with Leona lazily helping Jamil out of his comfort zone (because, once more, Leona sees himself in Jamil) until Jamil improves and finds his self-confidence once more. From there the angst has calmed and you can go to the lovey-dovey stuff!

Does any of this make sense?

I'm done rambling. That was a long one :')

[de-vespertiliones]

Hot take, but I don't think Jason is as unreasonable about his not being avenged in Lost Days/UtRH as we often think. Which: I definitely think his feelings in UtRH do come from a place of anger and hurt that isn’t very rational. That said, viewed narrowly, I think a couple moments from Jason's '80s Robin run make Jason's post-resurrection conclusions about how Bruce should have acted upon his dying make a kind of sense. (Full disclosure: I did not touch pre-Crisis content).

I know this panel from Detective Comics #570 makes the rounds fairly often:

But the context is sort of interesting: the person Bruce "lost" is Catwoman and she's very much alive. The Joker just brainwashed her back to being "bad" after she had been on the straight & narrow. (Notably, brainwashed "bad" Catwoman still balks at murder and protects Bruce's secret identity under duress, so "bad" seems pretty relative here).

So Jason's holding Bruce back from murder not because The Joker killed someone he cared about, but because Selina's returned to her old ways. This is flat-out murderous revenge and no one even died.

I think, in conversation with the below panel from Batman #425, there's something to talk about:

(For context, this is the father of the rapist who Jason may or may not have killed in Batman #424, who somehow magically intuits Jason is responsible for his son's death and is seeking his own vengeance.)

I don't think this necessarily reads as Bruce exonerating José Garzonas, but that he identifies the events of the comic as coming from "a father's righteous anger" implies that Bruce believes there is some degree of right behavior on Garzonas' part. Fathers, after all, avenge their sons.

Additionally, while I think from the perspective of the living that Tim being Robin wasn't intended as a slight against Jason (at least, outside of metatextual analysis), I think it's important to note that in terms of Jason's post-crisis origin, he's Robin to Batman long before he's anything to Bruce Wayne. Cf. Batman #409:

This is two or three days after the tires incident. Adoption is not, at any point, discussed. Jason is Robin first. (Indeed, post-Crisis we don't even see Jason finding out about Bruce being Batman).

Thus: Jason's had to hold Bruce back from murder after losing someone important to him (who isn't even dead), Bruce has described José Garzonas as possessing "righteous anger," and Robin is probably inextricably tied up with his place as Bruce's son/ward.* After being resurrected, Jason wakes up and the Joker isn't dead and there's someone taking up his role, the very first thing he was to Bruce. Looking at events from Jason's (limited) perspective, I guess I kind of don't blame him for thinking Bruce would've killed the Joker, and thinking also that things, as they stand, imply a lack of care on Bruce's part.

I think there's a clear throughline of Jason's expectations from what we see in his original '80s run to Lost Days/UtRH. I also will reiterate that I'm approaching this not from what Bruce ought to have done, but rather what I think Jason might’ve expected.

* I do have one point of confusion, which is (as far as I could tell) in Jason's post-crisis iteration, there's no reference to Jason being adopted as Bruce's son (as opposed to ward) except in NTT #55, after he's dead. Bruce accuses Dick of disliking Jason because he was adopted when Dick was not, and Dick returns that he wasn't upset about the adoption, just confused. Did I miss something? Are we supposed to assume the pre-crisis adoption holds? Are the writers just doing the standard inconsistent thing?

[vexedallay]

I have so many thoughts abt epsilon guys, so it's analysis post time-

Warning: long post below cut

So, they're not human, right? Their body is that of a robot, so presumably their mind is some sort of computer or AI (and here I mean an actual goddamn artificial intelligence, not a "generative ai" or some bs). So their entire fucking mind is made of code, and things like "variability" doesn't really exist. In order for someone like epsilon to function, they need to break down the complexity of human nature into sets of rules that govern how social interaction, society, and the world in general works. They can then follow these rules and be fine. (This is how my brain works, btw. Computers make more sense than people to me) Epsilon can understand that their rules might not be complete, and is flexible enough to add more when encountering new scenarios, but they do expect their rules to be accurate. They are very much a person of logic rather than emotion. As they have mostly only interacted with other robots and artificial beings, who function in much the same way, this works for them. However, when interacting with actual people, this doesn't work as well. People are notably often governed by emotion, not logic, and are incredibly prone to spontaneity. As such, Epsilon really has no idea how to interact with them sometimes, especially with little kids.

Epsilon also refers to living people as "organics" and robotic things as "artificials" because that is how they separate those two groups mentally. There's too many types of people, too many types of robots, so Epsilon refers to the makeup of their bodies instead. This isn't necessarily an insult, it simply is. But it is a fun detail about Epsilon habits.

Also since epsilon is a robot, they can do things like be rebuilt. This is a massive thing in the actual portal storyline - being able to rebuild these robots over and over again to continue testing. Even if Epsilon wasn't programmed initially to feel pain, they are a learning system (that's what makes them so good) so there isn't a reason they couldn't have *learned* to feel pain, or at least some facsimile of it. Additionally, them watching their body get destroyed and rebuilt it bound to be traumatizing anyways, which means I just gave this robot ptsd. Oops.

Anyhow, how does epsilon actually *survive* being destroyed, much less *watch*. First off, Epsilon only exists in their memory files. They can be *completely* disconnected from their body, lose access to *all* of their sensory systems, yet still be *alive*. (This is also bound to be incredibly traumatizing since they are basically completely at the mercy of whoever happens to find them, completely unable to defend themself.) And, if they needed to watch, glados is there and watching anyways. Since epsilon only exists in their memory files, they could be hooked up to other sensory systems, through network connections and whatnot. I'd imagine glados does this on purpose as a sort of threat to epsilon.

I do want to mention glados at least briefly. She definitely had some level of control over at least Epsilons body and sensory systems, which in general is rough (complete understatement). She also put Epsilon through all of these tests, making Epsilon a lab rat. Which means Epsilon likely has the *mentality* of a lab rat. So high levels of obedience, no real purpose to life (currently they want to find rho-13, but once they find him they won't have a purpose at all), etc. Which is just fun to play with.

Also, I like to think Epsilon uses they/them pronouns because they never got a gender module installed, and learned that they/them was the default. So they're a they/them guy with no actual preference.

Fibally, Epsilon definitely thinks of themself as EP-511ON56. They're a robot, and that is their serial number. The same way they think of RHO-13 as his serial number rather than a proper name. The reason they *use* this nickname is because organics don't like listing serial numbers constantly, so Epsilon.

Anyhow, long af ramble about epsilons character? Complete.

[transsongtaewon]

[Read on Ao3]

"Do you think it's possible to be a werewolf in a cisgender way?"

Yerim was munching on popcorn, watching as the man on the tv turned into a slighter larger, hairier man with cooler teeth.

"What?"

Yoohyun was sitting next to her, ignoring the popcorn Yerim had very kindly placed where they could both reach it. She had asked if he wanted to watch the movie together on a whim, not really expecting him to take her up on it, but he'd just looked vaguely annoyed and agreed. So now here they were, watching a mediocre monster movie together because Yerim thought the summary sounded funny.

"Just, can you be a werewolf in a cis way? Or, wait, do you not know what cis means?"

It made sense, of course. Why would Yoohyun of all people know about this stuff.

"Of course I know what cis means, who do you take me for." Yoohyun looked a little insulted and a little smug at the same time.

"Sometimes I almost understand why ahjussi thinks you're cute."

The look on his face morphed into one of abject horror, making Yerim cackle. "If we destroy another couch this week ahjussi will be disappointed! Don't try to set me on fire!"

Yoohyun sent her a dirty look but did not try to kill her over being called cute. He could be so well behaved at times.

"I just mean, if you have a person and they literally transform into some weird ideal of masculinity but also it's a monster that eats people, that obviously says something about gender."

"But not necessarily in a trans way, right? I understand that it's an exaggeration of masculinity but that doesn't mean it's automatically about being trans, it can just be a general gender thing."

"As far as I'm concerned, all gender is trans." She threw a piece of popcorn at him just because she could. He incinerated it before it could hit his face. "You really don't want any? It's pretty good."

"That's a bold stance. And no thank you."

Yerim shrugged. "Your loss." It really was very good popcorn and she was still amazed that Yoohyun had been willing to make it for her using his abilities. He truly was just a big softy big down - given that one happened to be on his hyung's good side.

"But I mean it, gender is all just a construct with, like, expected performances and stuff, and trans people have to perform more than anyone. Also they're expected to, like, hide a lot of gendered things because they contradict how they want to be seen. Also also hiding things is deceptive and therefore monstrous. Bam."

She felt like she almost made a coherent point there, so she allowed herself a moment to be very proud.

Yoohyun's raised eyebrow accompanied the werewolf on screen ripping someone's throat out. "I'm sure Killermonster 3: Attack of the Clawful Wolf offers great insights into the plight of trans people everywhere."

"Maybe it does. What do you know about media analysis?" Yerim scoffed.

"Oh, so we're watching this for analysis? You should have said so, I could have helped with your homework."

"Excuse you! I don't need help from you of all people."

"Unlike some people, I always had excellent grades in school."

Yerim was deeply tempted to throw the entire bowl of popcorn at him.

"If you mess up the couch, hyung will be disappointed!"

She huffed. She wasn't going to do it anyway, since she was a very mature person who wouldn't act out over something so small. Obviously.

"Anyway. It's literally about people transforming, so how could there not be any trans subtext."

"Would that make Peace trans?"

Yerim couldn't give in now, her honor depended on it. "For sure." A beat. "How does all that work for him anyway?"

Yoohyun looked a little uncertain. "I think the species can change sex at will depending on what is needed."

"Wow."

He shrugged.

"I still will not be listening to your opinions, since you have clearly never thought about your gender presentation a day in your life."

"Maybe not voluntarily," Yoohyun conceded. "But when I did my pr training and styling of course they considered that."

"Wait, really?"

"What do you think they did during that? I had to try out like fifty different looks until we landed on this one." He shrugged. "All the same to me, really."

She tried to imagine Yoohyun doing a cute concept and burst out into giggles. "Would you have gone with it if they decided to out you into frilly dresses all the time though? I thought even you would have your limits."

"Why do you think I've never worn dresses before?" He sounded so genuinely confused Yerim was confused right with him.

"You have? When?!"

"Not since I was young, but it was really the same as anything else."

Yerim blinked. "I really can't imagine that."

"And here I thought you were trying to combat gender stereotypes."

"Where you're correct, you're correct I suppose." She crunched a bit more of her popcorn. "Does Yoojin know about the dress thing?"

Yoohyun looked at her like she had gone a bit insane. "Of course he does, why wouldn't he?"

"I don't know! I just didn't expect this!"

Yoohyun got a look on her face that made her want to instinctively check if her shoelaces had been tied together, even though she of wasn't wearing any shoes. Before she could figure out what the fuck that meant, Yoojin opened the door.

"Hi! Sorry it got a bit late for me, you know how the monsters are." Yerim nodded even though she wasn't entirely sure 'how the monsters are'. "Have you had anything to eat yet? I was going to make myself something, so if you want a snack..."

"That'd be great, oppa! Thank you!" Yoohyun called out.

"Of course, Yoohyun. You too, Yerim? Coming right up."

Yoojin busied himself in the kitchen and Yerim turned toward Yoohyun. "What was that?"

"What was what?"

He really had perfected the innocent look. Yerim decided not to think about this any longer. Trying to one-up the Han brothers in insanity was futile endeavor anyway.

Written for Sctir Pride Week Day 6: Werewolves/Weremonsters

[legobiwan]

1-the character everyone gets wrong for Gravity Falls and 16-you can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc) for Star Wars ??

The character everyone gets wrong (Gravity Falls)

I want to preface this answer by saying that I think there are a plethora of fantastic Gravity Falls fics, comics, and metas out there that address and explore Stanley's possible mental health issues in light of everything we've learned about his backstory, which is pretty damn bleak. And yes, I do enjoy reading this angst.

The fandom tends to focus on this particular side of Stanley and with good reason - it is absolutely fertile ground for analysis and there is no doubt he is a tortured individual.

But there is a tendency to "blorbo-ize" Stan and his sympathetic history. While he was absolutely forced into some horrendous situations and had to make decisions based solely on survival probability, this is also a man who has a rap sheet a mile long, has outstanding warrants throughout the majority of the country, and is heavily, heavily implied to have been dealing in cartel business.

You don't get that far in these circles without having a backbone of steel and the capacity to do some seriously shady - and bloody - shit. Sure, Stan eventually bailed from the more hardcore aspects of his existence. And this isn't to say he's fundamentally a bad person or even liked everything he was doing - but he is a dangerous man, whether that danger comes at the end of a gun barrel or a marked ace of spades.

And I think this aspect of his character gets underplayed in a lot of fandom. (Interestingly enough, Ford is the one who is generally allocated this role, due to his dimensional hobo life on the run. And Ford is a badass, but Stan is equal to his brother in this, albeit in a different context). Stan maybe wants to forget that part of his life (understandable), but he didn't get as far as he did being a criminal (you don't get to rack up that kind of sheet and stay mostly clear of the law without some considerable feats) without developing certain skills and he'd be dead five times over if he weren't some kind of threat. Yes, by the time we meet him in the show, those instincts may have been dulled, likely intentionally, but this is the same man who admits to having 10 firearms in his household, even if his reasoning is (seemingly) ludicrous.

Runners-up: Mabel and the Flanderization of her zaniness. (Let's not forget she put the majority of the puzzle pieces together in Not What He Seems). Ford's seemingly god-like combat skills (the man gets his ass handed to him on multiple occasions in the show and is in constant need of rescue after he comes back from the Portal. Don't get me wrong - I love a badass Ford - but he wasn't exactly batting 1.000 after returning to Gravity Falls).

16. You can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc) (Star Wars)

I fully expect to get pilloried by certain factions of the fandom for this opinion, and to be honest, it's been a long-standing thorn in my side.

The Jedi were not 100% without fault and yes, some of decisions they made fed into their ultimate demise.

Was it deserved? No. Were they evil? No.

Were they a stagnant organization led by a creature who had lived long enough to distance himself from the day-to-day concerns of the majority of mortal beings under his care? Yes. Did they have an effective strategy to combat their massive, massive PR problem - a problem which ended up with them characterized as a baby-snatching cult of superbeings that could easily usurp the will of a (corrupt) Republic government? Nooooo, not at all.

They refused to play politics. Until they had to play politics. And they lost on all sides.

There was so much emphasis on tradition and purity of said tradition in the organization - even if the highest members of the Council didn't necessarily 100% agree with this - the mythology of it was present enough in the Jedi Temple, that constant, subtle pressure to do things in a certain way, to avoid wholly the Dark Side (even if the individual teachings of the Masters went against this). The Jedi wanted to change, but at the same time, couldn't budge the 1,000 ton boulder of their past until it was too late to avoid Palpatine's machinations.

The ultimate tragedy is that the Jedi meant well, but couldn't collectively nudge their organization towards change.

And they did make some baffling decisions - Anakin being allowed to train at all being peak among them. (And then letting Obi-wan - a grieving 25-year old being held hostage by a deathbed promise - to train Anakin, as per the "will of the Force..." This was not well-thought out by anyone involed.)

Dooku had legitimate criticisms of the Order, even if he ultimately expressed his grievances by betraying everyone and everything he loved and aligning himself with an ultimate evil that not even he could overcome. Qui-gon, for all of his many fault, had some great ideas for the Order and should have been on the Council - if for not other reason, than to upset the status quo (and yes, I know he turned it down, and that's another story altogether).

It feels, that in a certain way, the Jedi were crushed by their own mythology, and by the time that leviathan breached the surface, it was far too late for change.

Discussions of the Jedi have a tendency to polarize quickly, and I'd love for there to be more space for exploration of where they did fail without consigning the whole organization to the out-of-touch and evil-by-incompetence box.

(And caveat lector: post this fully admitting I haven't meditated on Star Wars lore in quite some time, so excuse some of the broader strokes of this analysis).

Ask me a spicy fandom question

[clangenrising]

Maaan this piece... this piece. The interaction between Scorch and Fogpaw. Absolutely phenomenal.

I think it's the first time that someone in RisingClan has been willing to interact with Scorch through her own worldview instead of trying to convince her it's wrong, and it seems to be a much more effective way to reach her. Because Goldenstar might be able to say "that's not the way things work here, not everything is a transaction, I give to you without necessarily expecting anything in return, I give to you because I love you for you," and while it's deeply important for Scorch to hear that, I think that right now, part of her is just going to write it off as naivety, as Goldenstar not understanding the way the world "really" is. But then there is Fogpaw. Who has lost much already, but is still innocent in other ways. Fogpaw who is willing and eager to learn from Scorchplume, and who doesn't really understand what Scorch's transactional worldview means when applied broadly, but is willing to speak to Scorch in those terms. So when Scorch says, "hey, I could betray you too," she is trying to teach Fogpaw that NOBODY is safe, not even her, because giving anyone your complete trust lets them have too much control over you. But then there is Fogpaw's reply: "if everything is a transaction, if everyone is just trying to get ahead, then in fact I CAN trust you because you would gain nothing from betraying me. By your own rules you are safe for me to trust because I have nothing to take away. I'm just a kid." (Thats my interpretation at least). It's a reply that so deeply displays Fogpaw's innocence, the fact that she doesn't conceptualize all the ways in which an adult could stand to gain from manipulating a minor, but she is speaking to Scorch in terms that actually get through. It's a much more effective way of telling Scorch "I trust you completely, I know you won't hurt me" than just coming out and saying that. Idk maybe I'm just babbling but it got to me. And think that in training Fogpaw, Scorch is unwittingly beginning another part of her healing that is so, so vital to developing a healthier worldview. I love them and cannot wait to see what is next for them.

50 RisingBucks for a spot on character analysis!

I love how you phrase that, "giving someone your complete trust gives them too much control over you" like Fuck! Thats Scorch in a nutshell! It wasn't really conscious when I was writing it but you're so right, the fact that Fogpaw buys in to Scorchplume’s transactional world view but still says "I have no reason not to trust you" is so much better at reaching her than what Goldie says. Its so interesting, I love it

[ourladyofmaplemurder]

Riverdale is Bad and I’m So Smart

So, I was going to make a response video to Friendly Space Ninja's video on the finale...but honestly, there are just other things I'd rather do with my time...

I did, however, write a script for the video. You can read that here if you wish.

The short version is that people who talk about art the way he does are fucking idiots and I'm tired of being nice about it. If you don't know what you're talking about, either figure it out or shut the fuck up. **And let me clarify: There is a big difference from expressing a personal opinion to friends and standing on authority with a huge platform to provide "critique". Huge difference. Not understanding or not liking the finale is totally valid, (It wasn't necessarily what I would have done with the final season) but what makes me angry about this guy in particular is that he positions himself as an authority on media criticism and analysis. He then provides the shittiest fucking examples of both. I can't stand it.

Hi. So. Our dear friend Friendly Space Ninja put out another video about Riverdale. This time, he took it upon himself to discuss the finale. Anything for a click, right, buddy?

Well, he made all sorts of claims about the finale and the final season. He gave his thoughts on the show as a whole. And all of it, dear viewer is entirely worthless. Strong statement, I know, but hear me out.

He didn’t watch the latter half of season 5, nor season 6 at all. He didn’t even watch all of season 7. He watched the first few episodes with specific expectations and when those were not met, he skipped to the end only to be baffled by its conclusion, claiming that it was all meaningless and even going as far as to “explain” quote unquote that Angel Tabitha’s rework of the timelines erases the other shows that Roberto Agurrie Sacasa has made. This, by the way, demonstrates such a lack of understanding of the surface level plot, that I can’t even respond to it.

For these reasons, I will not be refuting his assertions as I did in my last video response to him. It’s simply not worth it. His video is so deeply stupid that picking it apart would be giving it more credit than it deserves.

I was very diplomatic in my last response video, but I really don’t wish to be this time. I really don’t think it’s worth it.

However, I would like to say a few things, just to give you a sense of why I am so fucking angry.

Firstly, I’d like to talk about the work of Barnett Newman. In particular, I’d like to talk about Who’s Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue III. The first time I saw this painting, or even just paintings like it, I scoffed and said, “Why is something like this in a museum? It’s stupid. It’s just red, yellow, and blue. Is this even art?” Years later, however, I learned an interesting story about this painting.

In 1986 the painting was vandalized in an anti-Semitic attack. Daniel Goldreyer attempted to restore the painting in 1991. Should be easy, right? I mean, it’s just three colors.

However, the effort proved utterly unsuccessful as the depth of the color was incredibly difficult to replicate. The skill required to create this painting was far more than the untrained eye could perceive.

The first time I saw this painting, I did not understand it and condemned it as stupid because I was an arrogant prick.

And I’m sure hundreds of thousands of people who also don’t understand painting would agree with such a dismissive sentiment.

But just because I have millions of people agreeing with me doesn’t mean I know anything. It just means a lot of people don’t understand painting. That’s it.

Friendly Space Ninja’s video on Riverdale is the equivalent of someone looking at this painting and calling it stupid without understanding anything about abstract expressionism, painting techniques, and the works of Neoplasticism that this series was responding to.

It is watching Sunset Boulevard and complaining there is no color.  

It is the equivalent of an incel giving you dating advice.

But let me address Mr. Space Ninja directly and I won’t use any metaphors because I want this to be understood.

More than making a stupid response to Riverdale, your crime, Mr. Space Ninja, is arrogance. You look at a piece of art, you are utterly baffled by it, as you yourself say in the video, and you assume that the art must be the stupid one. It couldn’t be that it’s going over your head. No. It must be meaningless because you can’t grasp its meaning.

This is very troubling and also quite sad.

Though, I suspect you have no interest in providing useful insight into the works you discuss. It’s far more lucrative to provide inflammatory confirmation bias and, at the end of the day, that’s all you’re really doing. And to be clear, that is an insult. Wouldn’t want you to miss that. <3

Now, I also watched Alex Meyer’s video on the finale as well out of curiosity, as he also has a large platform. I haven’t watched his other videos because they seemed overtly negative about the show and I figured they wouldn’t be even remotely enjoyable. Curiosity won out though and honestly, though the sacred cow he is mocking is mine and thus, I disagree…I can’t fault him for this. There was a lot of care and thought that went into this. Even if he thinks the show is silly (and it certainly is) there’s a clear affection for it.

Not only that, but towards the end of the video he says this: “Time will be kind to your show. And all the chucklefucks like me with our kneejerk reactions? That's all going to fade away."

He also acknowledges the fact that there might be more to it than just the silliness. He doesn’t talk about it because he prefers to joke about the show rather than analyze it. He’s a jester, not a scholar. I could never fault him for that.

But I also don’t think anyone in their right mind would consider this critique. This is a comedy bit. And I’m not saying that comedy is less important or valuable than analysis. Not at all. It’s just different.

Anyway. Friendly Space Ninja. Fuck you.

[cipheramnesia]

When I talk about media, which let's be honest is mainly horror movies, they surprise me with interesting approaches to a topic, queerness, unique ideas, or simply through being unexpectedly fun and exciting. And that's always a fun entry into talking about a movie.

Sometimes I'll be so thrilled by a movie, or something in the movie, I immediately need to look up the critical response, and that might also be a place to start talking about media - particularly when I see criticism which, to my eyes, failed to understand something interesting about the movie. I might feel like the movie hasn't been seen by many people, or wasn't appreciated, and contrasting my experience with specific criticisms (I think) creates more a more interesting conversation about a movie, and may even prompt someone to watch it when they wouldn't have otherwise. It might even be my own expectations were so wrong, I'm excited about how wrong I was.

On the opposite side of this approach is "critics just don't understand movies are about fun!" What's frustrating is that this is in part true but is also in no way useful to understand if a movie is enjoyable. As a lover of horror, I am intimately acquainted with the tendency of critics to dismiss significant parts of the genre because it's just fun, and to try and put distance between any horror they enjoy ("elevated horror" - kiss my ass). I'm used to most people dismissing the genre as scary, gross, or otherwise just deeply unpalatable.

I'm so used to all that, in fact, that I want to try and go a little deeper when I'm trying to tell people about something interesting than just "critics don't understand movies should be fun." And that's what I'm actually complaining about today. Both the instance that fun is a primary quality attribute, and contextualizing something as misunderstood because somehow critics are all stuck in the no fun zone.

It would be one thing if "fun" was meant in a general sense. I find some pretty harrowing films fun, some really grim stuff fun. However, it mainly comes up with large budget movies, widely distributed movies, that generally are already being seen by plenty of audiences and which receive a large amount of promotion. And a lot of them are fine, they're fun, and that's about it. Plenty of critics out there have the same response, and generally that's what goes on the posters and in the trailers and everyone just goes on about their way until anyone runs across a criticism comes up like "I don't think it was very good / I don't think it was very interesting" and it gets a middle of the road critical score because it's a middle of the road movie not meant to be interesting.

That should all be fairly normal stuff, but there seems to be some disconnect between "this was a regular movie that was a lot of fun and wasn't necessarily world changing, but I am a big fan," and "critics didn't like this movie because it was not filmed or written or directed in a particular enjoyable way, but rather for general consumption by anyone with no specific need to be treated as intellectual." When someone like Martin Scorsese or Jamie Lee Curtis says something negative about something like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it seems to turn into this huge reaction of "Critics Just Don't Understand Fun" but now it's a kind of angry monster demanding atonement to fun. And on the one hand, for a lot of critics, those movies aren't for them. I think they know it, but their job is to analyze films, meaningful or otherwise.

But what I'm not sure everyone else knows is that sometimes criticism of your favorite fun movie is not for you. Critics can and do miss things that make a movie interesting, or dismiss a good movie because they think the general topic isn't worth analysis. But also like, when "critics don't understand movies should be fun" is pretty much exclusively leveraged at criticism of big expensive mass marketed movies, and also pretty often as criticism against movies which are making distinct choices which deviate from what is established as the expectation by mass marketed large budget movies, what happens is that I see that sort of phrase and I find I don't really trust what comes after it. So often, the context of that idea is a sort of film criticism equivalent to people who throw themselves in front of Elon Musk to protect the poor defenseless billionaire. And like, I don't know, maybe someone rushing to the defense of a huge movie release doesn't have the same idea as fun as me.

So I'm not gonna spend my time or money on the exciting big budget movie that critics don't understand is fun. What I'm gonna do is, I'm gonna just jump down into another scuzzy horror flick I never heard of and see where it goes, because that is what's fun for me.

[springtrappd]

i still think about "afton has dissociative identity disorder" guy sometimes not because he was outright wrong but because of how utterly insane the way he was wrong was. because the thing is that he wasn't wrong! afton does display various symptoms that indicate something is up with his sense of self*; he experiences extreme mood swings and shifts in personality, he references his various personas in the third person, doing elaborate dance routines to declare that that version of himself is dead, that he has numerous masks that he switches out at all, and just. Everything about him-as-spring-bonnie in tse**. i'd have to reread the trilogy to get you complete sources, but absolutely none of the things he says (or thinks of himself) are normal***, and they draw attention to this in the text every single time it happens. and naturally this is all up to interpretation, but it's a completely reasonable one to make given the circumstances****

like he was so so close to getting it but the ableism- and conspiracy-worms ate his brain and he jumped to "william afton has a split personality and is scott's secret self-insert meaning that the entire character is scott explaining that he, Real Guy Scott Cawthon, has dissociative identity disorder" rather than. just. "you can easily interpret afton as displaying symptoms of mental illness". which he does and you can.

CLICK HERE FOR FOOTNOTES:

[*] - psychiatric labels are names given to collections of symptoms to better categorise them for treatment/study; human beings are multifaceted beings by nature and thus often exist outside their narrow confines. it is pointless to argue the distinction between personality, mood and dissociative disorders in this context, as these titles are -- again -- tools to aid understanding. they exist to fit us; we do not exist to fit them. fictional characters, as entities that do not exist, cannot be definitively diagnosed or expected to behave in ways that satisfy the more psychiatrically-minded; however, viewing them through such a lens allows for a new perspective on their actions, and that is something vital to media analysis. the use of labels here are tools to assist in your understanding of what i'm discussing, not definitive statements of what something is (or isn't). He like definitely has a personality disorder though have you seen this guy, jesus christ

[**] - whether he's actually himself here (just concussed) or outright possessed is up to you. this is just a possible take on it, not necessarily the definitive one. i'm demonstrating an argument.

[***] - i do not know your own experiences and you should not judge yourself based on a random tumblr post about five nights at freddy's. it's okay if this aspect of afton's character resonates with you, or if you don't understand why a statement like this would be noteworthy from a psychological perspective. he is a fictional character who has been written the way he was with particular intent; you are a real person with lived experiences that cannot be confined to the page. there isn't (necessarily) anything wrong with you (and it doesn't matter if there is, btw) (see note 1), but this is used as a way to show that there is something wrong with him.

[****] - i have a dissociative disorder. you do not need to know anything more about it than that, and i will not be telling you.

[egg-emperor]

I saw this toss in about the whole "Eggdad" thing: Even if Eggman never lays a hand on Sage; that doesn't necessarily mean this stops for the rest of his creations. And Sage has to bear witness to that. (A parent showing blatant favoritism towards certain kids isn't wholesome by any means and hardly ever leads to anything good for every kid involved; including the ones that sucks up all the attention. It's silly to think that this wouldn't affect Sage in some way. Gamma wasn't an AI, and yet the actions Eggman had him do [and Amy's words] had him think twice. Omega was tossed away, and now seeks revenge. Even Metal Sonic rebelled, which ultimately resulted in him being reset. *With Sonic's influence changing how she calculated outcomes, what's stopping her from having her "canon event" later?)

*Note: This doesn't really mean yet another rebellion from an Eggman invention. (In anything, I'm more intrigued about the opposite happening. Like Sage struggling with perfectionism to NOT wind up like previous creations did. Constant approval seeking.)

Yeah exactly. I think a lot of the people who didn't wanna hear me out were missing the point of my analysis, hc, and fic about this. They were acting like I'm predicting that Eggman will be depicted smacking Sage around or something but I don't think he will because well- he literally can't. At least I don't think so because Sage is an AI program and his hands should just phase right through her if he were to try anyway.

Instead I was actually highlighting how terribly he treats all his other creations of Metal Sonic, the E Series, and Orbot and Cubot and how he's even manipulated those who were created/worked on by his grandfather with Emerl and Shadow. It'd make a lot of sense if he manipulated Sage in various ways and one way can actually be through treating her better than his other creations that he still treats terribly.

It's highly likely for him to at least be manipulative towards her, in fact he pretty much is in the Frontiers' story. Because he'll yell at her one moment when she doesn't do exactly what he wants but highly praises her the next when she does. He'll raise his voice and thump things that he can hit when he's angry at her, just as he does his other creations. Only difference is that he can't actually hit her like them.

But hitting them physically isn't the only way he can be a bad father and show concerning traits that support that. It's all throughout Frontiers for the above, which is present in multiple cutscenes. And also the way his value of Sage is solely rooted in what she can do for him and how great and impressive of a genius she makes him look as her creator in the first place, as he makes very clear in the memos.

That's already a lot of pressure put on Sage. She's expected to meet these expectations in loyalty and efficiency that Eggman brags about in the memos, otherwise she isn't reflective of his genius and doesn't bring him the selfish gain he desires, which will lose what gives her value and use to him in his own words! And not just that, but also the point you've raised about how he treats his other creations.

I've seen a lot of people acting like the way Eggman treated his other creations suddenly doesn't matter or just ignore it. But let's not pretend that Eggman isn't awfully cruel to Orbot and Cubot all the time in the games, which I explored in depth in my "proof that Eggman is a bad father" video. He has been verbally and physically abusive towards them and there's no other word for it or any excuses to make against it.

That isn't suddenly erased just because he sees more value in Sage (for very selfish conceited self serving reasons at that) and half-heartedly entertains the idea of Orbot and Cubot being like her brothers. It actually makes it worse that he's willing to see them that way with the way he treats them. It just means he's canonically both verbally and physically abusive to "kids" of his already, regardless of if he is to Sage.

I've seen it depicted in cutesy funny ways to have Eggman treat Sage better in front of the others, but the blatant favoritism of some creations over others, that's based on who is the most impressive and useful to him at the time, would have harmful effects on all involved in reality. Sage has to keep living up to that and he can use her as an example to get the others to fight harder for the same praise.

The Murder of Sonic had Eggman do this intentionally by having them compete against to serve him well to impress him and get praise and "rewards" and I really like that. He programs them with feelings just to take advantage of them like that and that's just so Eggman. I can see him doing more of the exact same thing in the main games with how their worth is determined by their use there too.

Sage, Metal Sonic, and Orbot and Cubot would all be affected badly by this when they realize Eggman's affection and praise is conditional, shallow, and manipulative in these ways. When they realize that it's really all determined by what is the most beneficial to him personally, while buttering them up to keep them loyal and efficient, set an example and act as a measuring stick to the others but tosses them if they fail.

And Gamma was also a victim of this as a top example of what shows how harmful it is when Eggman picks a favorite! Eggman praised Gamma highly and said he was proud of him in the exact same way he did to Sage and say that he knew he'd be of use (again proving that their value is determined by their use to him), to butter him up and keep him performing well- even though he clearly had doubts in him prior.

It was very manipulative of Eggman to that just like it appears to me with Sage too. It's even similar to TMoS in a way, with how he pit Gamma against Beta in a fight and all the E Series had to search for Froggy and he punished the failures cruelly by breaking them down, disassembling them and putting them back together, which disturbed Gamma so much that he was willing to kill his brothers to set them all free.

And Omega was shut away by Eggman and he hated being sealed in that room, not even the important duty of guarding the real Shadow and ensuring that he didn't escape was enough to feel valued and be happy. Just because he can be useful to him, it doesn't change that Eggman is still cruel and uncaring and will lock him away and not care if he wants it or not. His value and praise is a performance and only for his gain.

And Metal Sonic is also another of the top examples of what it's like to be treated badly by Eggman to the point that he tries to rebel twice but not be so lucky to escape like the E Series and Omega because he's trapped being reprogrammed again and again and kept under his control to ensure that he's not going anywhere. No matter how useful a creation is to him at one point or another, they all suffer in some way.

There are many ways Eggman could be cruel or harmful to Sage. I think he's already shown signs of how and used some tactics on her in Frontiers, going by his track record and the known intentions and reasons behind it confirmed by Ian Flynn. Maybe they'll decide to expand on it blatantly, maybe they won't. But I think it's there subtly already and those conditions are very accurate to his character.

Then you have the extras of Eggman calling Sage "ugly/unseemly" before he gave her shoes in the Sonic Channel art (what was seen as a sweet cute gift by fans still had him being a jerk in it like lol wtf Eggman) and in Murder of Sonic, he's still yelling at Orbot in front of her, so she has witnessed Eggman still very much being terrible to his other creations/her brothers and in front of her in official media already!

And yeah I don't see Sage betraying Eggman with the stuff she witnessed both from how he treats her and Sonic and co and how she still stuck by his side and stayed genuinely loyal and willing to protect and serve. Even after all that and how she also revealed that she doubted he even cared about her, as she asked Sonic if he thinks Eggman does (to which Sonic could only mutter "sure... in his own way" lol)

Eggman doesn't even have to give her much to keep her loyal and efficient as it's what he created her to do and it was a success, she's devoted and willing regardless of how he treats her. She was like that even before he gave her an ounce of praise and even after he yelled at her. But the manipulation of her emotions by buttering her up with that praise, albeit conditional, helps further ensure it will stay that way.

And when his other creations see the praise and approval Sage gets, they'll wish they could get that too and will work harder to try to please him, which is exactly what he wants. But he has and continues to treat his other creations terribly even in front of her when they don't, which puts even more pressure on her having to continue living up to that standard to keep him pleased and avoid ending up like them.

So yeah, regardless of how Eggman treats Sage on the surface, there's always those dark undertones, the bad signs that have shown in their interactions, and the toxic basis of their dynamic on Eggman's side as officially confirmed. It's supposed to be unsettling as Flynn said for a reason. And he still treats his other creations blatantly terribly in front of her which also isn't pleasant and can have harmful effects.

They're not the picture perfect family that people find cute and ideal and that's actually the point. And it will definitely be interesting to see how Sage remains loyal and devoted but will have to deal with her father doing things like this to her brothers and what she thinks and he feels about it. It will probably be like how she took a liking to Sonic and co but Eggman just wants them dead but still she stayed by him despite that.

[outrunningthedark]

Thinking about your posts/anons about the coma dream and I think it sums up the issue with buddie going canon is definitely happening stuff...

The goal posts constantly change: eddie is going to have a big part and it's going to MEAN something and when it didn't happen it becomes actually it MEANS something he wasn't there

I think at the end of the day the show is a lot less deep than people think and it's not necessarily a bad thing but all the various theories asign a much deeper meaning than what is ever actually happening

💯💯Joining a fandom, especially for a specific character or ship, is great in the beginning. You find people who share your same interests. There's fic to read. Gifs and others edits to reblog. But a funny thing happens when you surround yourself with like-minded people for the purpose of "protecting your peace": You start to believe that your interpretation, or the interpretations of the people you choose to listen to, is the right one. The only one.

Of course Buddie blogs (the serious ones) want to have hope that everything we're watching is part of a "bigger plan" and [any scene] wouldn't have been done that way if we weren't supposed to keep the faith. These people really, really want Buddie to go canon. (For Eddie's queerness more than the actual ship at this point.) So if you're scrolling your dash or your timeline and all you see is the same analysis reblogged 10x that's talking about intentions and planning and (we all remember this one) long-form storytelling? Well. No one's pushing back against these opinions.

You've chosen not to see them.

No one’s gonna tell you they’re wrong.

But.

This is 9-1-1.

Kristen knew she was never being put in position to help Buddie go canon, and she said what she could to make that clear, so anything that happened wasn’t meant to be bigger than two best friends doing best friend things as far as canon was concerned.

And then there’s Tim.

The show runner who assembles the train track as it’s moving (his words).

The show runner who doesn’t know what he’s doing month to month, never mind season to season.

If fandom wants to assign meaning to something for their own enjoyment? Without assumptions? Have at it.

But we can’t expect the show runners to make those connections when they’re just trying to put words on the page before the deadline.