[Caption: gifs from Supernatural. Claire sits at the back of a car, being driven away to Sioux Falls; Castiel stands behind, seeing it leave. The set is accompanied by a quote: “love is like a dying ember, only memories remain; through the ages I’ll remember blue eyes crying in the rain.”]
but seriously does anyone else in this show seal their own fate as quickly and effortlessly as linus harcourt does by introducing himself and his ship to a certain man who’s currently got all the odds stacked against him and also has a penchant for names and their meanings??
[Caption: screenshots from Black Sails. Linus Harcourt introduces himself to Jack as captain of the Goliath. Nonplussed, Jack asks him if he really named his ship after the greatest disappointment in the history of warfare, and Linus replies that his crew likes how it sounds.]
[Caption: gifs from The 100. They blend scenes between Murphy and Emori. In the first one an image of Murphy, in a cave, telling Emori “In this world, when people leave they don’t come back.” is blended with one of him in the Eligius ship stepping back from the path to the drop ship and staying on it after Emori makes a hurtful comment. The second one blends Emori replying to him with “I did.”, and watching him step back into the Eligius ship.]
Can I ask the cooking / eating headcanon for Ruby, Meg and Rowena please ?
I’ve often wondered about demon’s capacity for taste; I’d gather they might not have much, really. I mean, part of this is that this show is more likely to have a character drink alcohol than eating in general LOL, but rn I don’t really remember an instance of a demon enjoying food other than Ruby. I’m trying to think of if we saw Crowley enjoy a proper meal, but yup, what comes to my memories is mostly alcohol.
Actually, part of my headcanon about demons possibly having diminished taste is because of Ruby lmao. She’s the demon I can remember with an established food preference, and it’s French fries. Which have salt. Which hurts demons. My little masochist xDDD
So I could see the possibility that demons don’t have a very refined palate -better than angels, but the connections between the vessel’s tastebuds and their brain doesn’t translate to the host. And it’s not like they really need to eat to keep going. Ruby’s taste for extra salty food could be an equivalent to humans who love super-spicy food lol, and her way to make the meal a bit more enjoyable for herself.
All I remember with Meg is alcohol again (beer in s1 iirc, and some hard licor in 8x17, either of those two in 7x21 in a paper bag?). I can see her not caring much, tbh. She doesn’t need it, she doesn’t particularly miss it (I don’t think she remembers her human life at all, so) or thinks she should concern herself for it, as a demon. Alcohol is probably different because if enough quantities can affect angels, less of that can affect a demon’s mental state too and a light buzz could be pleasant for her. IF she could taste food properly… my first thought was “she’s a pizza person” which, given the show’s context, añsldkfjasdfj. Greasy pizza it is LOL.
Neither of them would care for cooking in those circumstances lbr. If Ruby wants fries she just buys them.
Oh, wait, I can see one context where Meg would have to eat food: in season 7 when she’s playing the part of Castiel’s nurse lmao -HIS food would have to go somewhere, since I doubt Castiel would bother with it, so one method to make it disappear if she’s bored enough would be to just… eat it lol. Mental hospital food probably didn’t warm her up to the idea of eating for pleasure xD
What we know from Rowena, the few bits with seen of her eating or drinking suggest she goes for the fancy, lots-of-flash-little-substance stuff as a status marker to compensate for a more humble and looked-down-upon background. I can’t see her cooking either, she definitely goes around fancy restaurants spelling waiters or making other people pay for her meals lmao.
Cooking / eating headcanon for Castiel, Jack and Sam please ?
Canon already gives us some info here –when fully powered, Castiel can only taste “molecules”, which I can of could see as, instead of flavour, he processes food as information, maybe? Does not sound pleasant lmao. Depowered, he has been shown to enjoy the taste of burgers or pb&j sandwitches; it sounds like the first was mainly a Jimmy’s-body thing, so maybe he retains his palate, and would only develop tastes of his own over time?
Jack… we mostly see him eat random sweets (and drinking beer…), and I truly wish this kid had better human adults around alsdkfjasdflk. Feed him well!! The only good living parent he has has zero personal frame of reference when it comes to human diet (I bet he read a lot on a baby’s diet before the birth, but then he came back to a grown young man and went…. “alright I guess… cereal? Cereal is supposed to be good?” and that’s it xDD). Dean couldn’t give less of a shit, when he’s not reading into Jack’s food choices to ascertain his morality lmao, and Sam, all health-concious when it comes to his own diet, follows his lead there rme.
Anyway: Jack needs better food-influeces on his life lmao. I want to cook him a good broth or something.
Sam is the one we have more information about on canon, although it basically amounts to: a.) he’s health-concious, may have attempted to reduce meat intake/vegetarianism? (ETA: according to Dean’s Law, this makes him a sissy. I personally think it’s about control, with how much his body has been taken from him), and b.) doesn’t seem to cook much, although with the life he’s lived I’d guess he’d know a few basics to get by.
There’s a lot of writing and meta on here about women who want to romance and fuck monsters and What It Says About Womanhood but less about women who want to bemonsters and it makes me very sad but I’ve been thinking about the post my queue spat out yesterday about Frankenstein as apparently male gothic and I think there’s a case to be made for Frankenstein as the monstrous woman who is in fact a deeply intelligent creature who wants to be taken seriously by society but is rejected because of her monstrosity (her bluestocking nature, her rejection of social mores governing women’s behavior, regarding norms of where women belong and the interests they may or may not pursue) and is in fact feared by the very thing that breathed life into her (society, which educated her, which built her into a monster) etc etc
But I also feel like this is something someone has said before somewhere so.
Reminds me of some great Medusa meta that crossed my dash a while back.
Also, for that matter, makes me think of the time I made a post talking about how years of street harassment have made me leery of and reflexively hostile towards men and some douchebag replied to my post going “Wow how fucked up do you have to be to look at every guy you meet and assume the worst?” and I was like … I literally just told you how fucked up you have to be?? I literally just said ‘years of traumatic street harassment made me like this’?????
I have mixed feelings about the Medusa thing here in relation to the specific point of this meta which is that womanhood as monstrosity may be a subversive form of writing women do to talk about their experiences of womanhood as alienating, dehumanizing experiences because
a) while I appreciate this meta it is at best only a feminist retelling of the Medusa myth and that too a very limited feminist retelling of it* because the original Medusa myth as narrated by Ovid is very much about Medusa’s monstrosity as a punishment inflicted on her by Athena, specifically for having defiled her temple by getting raped by Poseidon in it, to wit (quote taken from the excerpt on theoi):
‘What you ask is worth the telling; listen and I’ll tell the tale. Her beauty was far-famed, the jealous hope of many a suitor, and of all her charms her hair was loveliest; so I was told by one who claimed to have seen her. She, it’s said, was violated in Minerva’s [Athena’s] shrine by the Lord of the Sea (Rector Pelagi) [Poseidon]. Jove’s [Zeus’] daughter turned away and covered with her shield her virgin’s eyes. And then for fitting punishment transformed the Gorgo’s lovely hair to loathsome snakes.
It’s very much a woman as monster myth that reflects a Greek patriarchal narrative about virtue, womanhood and good women and bad women. In this case the virtuous Athena retains her virtue by remaining complicit in patriarchy and inflicting patriarchal punishments on Medusa – a theme which is reiterated across Greek myth wrt women (most notably in parallel, the story of Ion and his mother, who was raped by Apollo. Even Medea, though her story is more sympathetic, has long sections in the Euripides play where Jason lectures her for being hysterical before she transforms into the ultimate monstrous mother and so on and so forth). It’s a woman as monster narrative that is very much forced on women to uphold patriarchal norms and anxieties, it isn’t about the woman herself and how she experiences womahood, but how this monstrosity is justified as punishment.
*There have been feminist reinterpretations of Medusa focusing on Medusa as a symbol of women’s rage which grasps at the concept of rage at the patriarchal subjugation rife in this story and monstrosity as a symbol of “bad” womanhood ie womanhood that defies the patriarchal standard and manifests anxieties in them but this newer version sees monstrosity less as a curse forced upon the woman, or enforced restriction which may become a symbol of unruliness and rage and patriarchal anxiety in how it’s leveraged by the woman now deemed bad, but a blessing that hides her from the patriarchy (instead of making her a source of anxiety) and I don’t particularly care for it much as a feminist counter-reading since it rather limits the narrative and elides the transgressive and transformative option of female rage, defiance and deliberate provocation of male anxiety as rebellion against patriarchy.
b) the Frankenstein story is a story by Mary Shelley, a fiercely intelligent woman raised in a feminist tradition via her mother and a contradictory tradition of rationalism and education versus restrictive Regency era social mores by her father. This is obviously also only a reading of Frankenstein (as is, also, the reading of the monstrosity of Medusa as a symbol of female rage) and its potential themes of monstrosity – a monster who may read these radical rationalist and progressive works and be born of an Enlightenment man’s creative experimentation, but is ultimately feared and ultimately barred from the society that birthed it despite it’s progressive protestations otherwise – are ultimately only a creative interpretation but having been written by a woman author, writing from a society at odds with itself (of on the one hand, radical social liberation, on the other deep social conservatism, in the middle men who profess progressive Enlightenment ideals and who educate her but then enforce restrictive social norms on her) it by nature becomes a narrative that’s very different from a patriarch’s morality tale. By nature idk I think Frankenstein is the more subversive piece in that it’s narrative is not about how the monster is just a monster, but that it is a thinking creature deeply wronged – the monster has an interiority that Medea’s mythological origins lacks. The story is the monster and man in conflict with each other, but in which man drives the conflict and responds to the monster from a site of his own anxieties and fears, rather than fearing the nature of the monster itself.
I think it’s telling too that in male retellings of Frankenstein, as on its various film retellings, that the monster is reduced to a groaning, dehumanized and unthinking, fearsome beast wherein the fear and anxiety it provokes is justified and wherein the elimination of the monster is seen as desirable or heroic (as also, the beheading of Medusa). It does raise the question of how womanhood and monstrosity exist in this narrative in relation to each other, if male retellings reduce the monster to a site of masculine anxieties.
It definitely seems a more subversive standard of writing than the Ovidian myth. It definitely was subversive even by gothic fiction standards.
Lesbians will see a fictional older woman with questionable morals and emotional baggage and be like that’s my wife ❤️
#why does this post have so many notes when it was clearly referencing ME 🤔😂 #(but seriously just look at all my icons across sm lol -tumblr twitter dw ao3 reddit discord...) #lol#reblog #me me me #laugh tag
Well, during the course of the story they’re going to be to young to be experienced cooks lol. But as adults, I imagine Angelica being far better at it, because it’d be similar to her potion making as per Rowena’s teaching lol. Lucille would live out of her sister’s cooking or take out.
Taste-wise they have a different palate, and I imagine that this might be a bit frustrating for their parents xDD. Lucille likes acidic flavours, salty and bitter foods; Angelica appreciates savoury flavours and sweets (although balanced with other flavours).
Lucille could, would, and probably has literally eaten a lemon raw and Angelica thinks banana pancakes with maple syrup are the best thing in the world.
[image description: a digital drawing of jesper fahey and inej ghafa. jesper is a thin dark-skinned black boy with short twists wearing a teal striped vest and a red tie. he is looking happily at his earring with a jurda flower at the end. behind him, inej smiles at him hopefully. she’s a thin brown-skinned south asian girl with a dark blue cape, and her long dark hair is down. she also wears an earring matching jesper’s. end id]
the thing is. cas was punished for feeling. all the times he was lobotomized it was because he Felt and did something he shouldnt have, when he got out of control. he was Punished.
i think. i think after being lobotomized so much. there’s some kind of Pavlov effect. whenever he feels he gets scared. remember uriel telling cas to be unafraid and cas says “for the first time i am” ? he finally broke through the connection with naomi at that moment. but like he obviously got lobotomized AGAIN in the rapture with the “i serve heaven i dont serve man and i definitely dont serve you”
I don’t know what you’re up to, and, ultimately, I don’t care.
[Caption: gifs from Shadowhunters. Isabelle accuses Victor Aldertree of using Alec as bait to capture Jace, and he replies that he’s working on capturing “the fugitive that put Alec in that position”. Later, Isabelle says they’re not gonna loose Alec, and Aldertree calls her confident, “too confident”. Isabelle eventually offers information about Jace’s whereabouts to get Aldertree to help her, and requests that he gives her access to a Portal. Their last interaction in the episode is Aldertree asking if they have a deal, and Isabelle staring at him without replying, but having no option but to agree.]
i. Devil’s Resting Place
– Laura Marling // ii. Killer Queen – Queen // iii. Toxic
– Yael Naim // iv. Werewolf Heart – Dead Man’s Bones // v. Movement – Hozier // vi. Whatever You Like – Anya Marina //
vii. Lost – Anouk // viii. I Want You To Love Me – Fiona Apple // ix. When I Kissed the Teacher – Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again Cast // x. Which Witch – Florence + The Machine.
“Una mujer, para que se la reconozca como escritora, pintora, investigadora o lo que sea, tiene que hacer veinte veces más que un hombre, tiene que ser una fuera de serie. No hay apenas mujeres reconocidas en ninguna profesión, pero el mundo está lleno de célebres hombres mediocres.”
— El libro de Gloria Fuertes, Gloria Fuertes.
[Translation: “A woman, in order to be recognized as a writer, painter, researcher or anything else, has to do twenty times more than a man, has to be out of this world. There are barely renowned women in any profession, but the world is full of famous mediocre men.” -The book of Gloria Fuertes.]
#gloria fuertes in tumblr?? MY gloria fuertes in tumblr???? #oooooh this is going to reawaken somethinh #the urge i feel now to re read her stuff and comment on her best quotes here... #actually i should do that with the books i've been rereading this month hmm #reblog#quotes#gloria fuertes#feminism
i’m that post about not being a sam winchester apologist cause he hasn’t done anything wrong you apologize to him for real but about gadreel. how’s he supposed to know any better? he’s been locked in heaven prison since humans left the garden how’s he supposed to understand the intricacies of possession and consent. dean told him to do it. are you saying you wouldn’t take an opportunity to be in sam’s body? if someone told me i could possess jared padalecki tomorrow and run around in his life with his money being 6’5 well guys i hope you wouldn’t miss me too much
#this did NOT go where i expected it to lmao #i personally wouldn't have thought about the appeal of possesing padalecki until op mentioned the money and the height lol #but now that i have what I'd enjoy the most is the access to his twitter account #i would let out my most chaptic impulses muahahahah #reblog#spn crack#supernatural#spn gadreel#sam winchester
Spn should’ve done an episode where Sam gets hit by a witch’s spell and her curse makes him grow. So for the majority of the episode his head is just comically out frame. Dean is annoyed that Sam’s taller. Cas, Jack, and Sam spend some time seeing what kind of stuff can Sam do now: how far can he throw an angel blade, how high can he reach on some of the shelves, ect.
When Rowena gets there to try to see if she can reverse things, she gives him a once over.
Dean: “Get cracking.”
Rowena: “Shhh, before we do something we might regret, I need to know something.”
Rowena: “Did everything grow….?”
Dean groans, utterly annoyed with the situation. Sam leaves the room because he didn’t think to check. Jack’s eyebrows pinch together in confusion.
Jack: “I don’t understand?”
Cas: “She’s asking if his penis grew larger too. It’s not important.”
Rowena: “It’s important to some people.”
Sam comes back in the room and he slumps in his chair, crossing his arms. Dean laughs quietly into his beer bottle and takes another swig. Jack’s brow furrows more.
the second hand catharsis i experience when a fictional character lampshades how somebody else fucked up in their treatment of them and then goes ‘you dont get to be forgiven’ wheeewww literal cocaine for me
I don’t know what Daniel Radcliffe is doing these days and this clip doesn’t help but here’s my thoughts on the matter:
[Caption: the post starts with a screenshot of a tweet by user notquitezennor saying “I didn’t have Daniel Radcliffe as a priest doing a gloriously high camp drag performance circa 1840s Oregon on my 2021 bingo card, but here we are I guess.” It’s followed by a video of exactly that from a scene in Miracle Workers: Oregon Trail. The post ends with a meme of Lucille Bluth from Arrested Development edited to admiratively say “good for him”.]
i. Devil’s Resting Place
– Laura Marling // ii. Killer Queen – Queen // iii. Toxic
– Yael Naim // iv. Werewolf Heart – Dead Man’s Bones // v. Movement – Hozier // vi. Whatever You Like – Anya Marina //
vii. Lost – Anouk // viii. I Want You To Love Me – Fiona Apple // ix. When I Kissed the Teacher – Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again Cast // x. Which Witch – Florence + The Machine.
*cracks my knuckles* This is a load of bullshit but so are all comics and all fiction and storytelling under capitalism, and any expectation for cape comics to be comparable to each other or hold their own internal logic.
So with that out of the way. I’m gonna contrast Bruce vs. Peter, the Batman origin vs. the Spider-Man origin, and the broader foundational logic of DC and Marvel themselves.
Batman and Spider-Man are both famous fictional bastions of doing right by the world, but
Bruce’s goodness is an innate trait and an inevitability and Peter’s is a result of free will and chaos theory.
They may both be innately great, but only Bruce is innately good. These properties exemplify how as I see it, a good DC story has players whose internal qualities point them to good or evil in a dramatic manner, and a good Marvel story has ones whose alignments are constructed by their circumstances and decisions.
We need stories about heroes of both types. The first is comfortable to settle into while feeling grand and epic. The second is easier to find yourself in without getting down on yourself for not being made of sunshine. They fill different needs for what we look for in media, and they can both inspire us to compare ourselves against them and be better people. Not everybody is going to agree with me dividing up which stories I want told which ways.
Okay, so, hear me out. The biggest moneymaker of my American superhero comic book company – not that it started as that, but that’s what it’s been known for for decades – is this dude! His theme is an animal traditionally considered creepy and disgusting, but he’s a hero. He scares people – criminals on purpose, because they get the full brunt of his deeply unsettling demeanor, but that poorly publicized spooky persona leaves average people unsure what to think about him, relying mostly on hearsay to build their impressions, so the public opinion is pretty uneven. But the READERS know he’s a good dude, because his origin story is centered around crime, specifically gun violence, and lets you know why he does what he does! A random criminal shoots this character’s guardian when he’s still a kid, and because of that he takes up the vocation of wandering around directing his abilities to 1. specifically stopping other violent crimes like the one that messed up his family and 2. generally improving the world however he is able, though of course things that reflect the tragedy he experienced resonate more personally. He feels obligated to do this because of the crime that affected his family.
Why that obligation? That’s where describing Bruce and Peter as one falls apart.
Bruce’s sense of obligation to fight crime is driven by empathy. Bruce’s reasoning is more optimistic. Yeah, I know, Batman is considered the more grimdark property between the two, but hear me out. Bruce was a baby who did nothing wrong. His parents are murdered, technically by a mugger, but figuratively by the very existence of crime. So he directs his actions toward this external problem, Crime with a capital C. He grows up in between his parents’ deaths and the beginning of his crimefighting career, and must be able to understand by then that the idea of trying to end crime is ridiculous and childish, but he acts on it anyway. It’s a beautiful act of defiant optimism, for all that it grew out of tragedy.
Bruce takes in a lot of children who have faced their own tragedies because he’s being there for them the way he knows he could have used someone to be there for him, and he works with these children similar to his past self on this child-level idea of denying incidents like the ones that struck them their right to exist. It’s thematic. These children grow, at a rate of about one year for every ten of ours, into adults who continue to commit the ultimate folly of refusing to succumb to pragmatism. Yes, again, I know, it’s the Batfam, the ultimate pragmatists, blah blah, but that’s a pretty late aesthetic addition to the mythos of these characters. It’s fun, and it balances out the wild optimism they run on for those who find it stretches their suspension of disbelief, but it’s not load-bearing. What is is that they’re fighting the very forces of entropy and human suffering. They make a difference one person at a time just in case they’re preventing tragedies like the ones that shaped them, with one eye on the impossible goal of there never being tragedies like that again. Until that happens they can’t stop.
Bruce, though, doesn’t need this tragedy to become a hero and a helper.
In at least “To Kill a Legend” and Bombshells/Bombshells: United we see alternate versions of his tale where he becomes determined to become a hero without his parents dying just because he sees others proving the method and decides he wants in on that. In that first one the other hero in question is his own alternate universe self who did have that defining tragedy and is convinced that he’s creating a world with no Batman because he cannot stand by and let the tragedy that shaped him happen here because that’s the exact opposite of what he’s all about, who never realizes he’s actually inspired his alternate self to walk the same path he did.
He’s just a good dude! He might even be a better hero if he hadn’t been super traumatized at a formative age. When he does his best to do good he is arguably acting at least as much in spite of the Wayne murder as because of it.
Bruce is pretty much a very short Batman from the
instant he gets a direction to work to, which is incidentally when his parents die in most lives. It’s easy to be like, “Well, his innocence is dramatically stripped away then, changing him foreverrrrr,” but he has to keep enough of that innocence to build the idea of Batman with. He has to keep enough of it to remember what he found inspiring in fiction about Zorro and the Gray Ghost and put it into action. Unsubtle nudge, this is what the reader is supposed to do about reading Batman, but with less literal cape wearing. Unless you’re a cosplayer who visits the ill, in which case wow, you are cool.
But yeah, Bruce’s core is set when he’s young, and all he has to do after picking a path to pursue is develop his
methods, train his mind and body, and find like sixty or seventy people over the course of his life
to become his found family. He’s angry at the world and needs an outlet to channel that, but when it comes down to it he rages at it for being unfair to people in general, not specifically to him, even though it would be more than justified. When contemplating his own hardships that rage rarely holds, leaving someone who’s just adrift, baffled at the senselessness of loss.
A lot of stories depict him as drawing clear lines between what he will and won’t do because he fears losing sight of things and becoming too much like what he fights, and some alternate timelines support that, and yet…I’m just not buying it, dude. I’m smacking my lips and it tastes like a contrived response to people who don’t understand genre conventions and demand an exact reason Bruce won’t kill killers besides “He just doesn’t roll like that and people don’t permanently die outside of backstories in this universe anyway.” When in doubt, he does shit because he’s a fundamentally good person. He sends his antagonists to an asylum where they will theoretically get better and lets elementary schoolers help punch mobsters and dresses up like a bat because his mythos is built on optimism. The gargoyles and blood red sky were a trick the whole time.
So why did I even clarify he did nothing wrong earlier? You can’t DESERVE to have your family murdered in front of you at a young age.
Haha. Unless you’re a Silver Age Marvel character instead of a Golden Age DC one.
Peter’s sense of obligation to fight crime is founded in guilt. He doesn’t cause a mugger to shoot his uncle, because karma isn’t real (even in Marvel almost all the time), and that’s completely ridiculous. But he 110% internalizes it as his fault. You definitely already know this story, but refresher, he thinks this because he saw the same criminal doing a crime earlier before it had anything to do with him or his family and he didn’t do anything about it just for the sake of being a good citizen. Just for fun, in around 2001 it comes up that his aunt, May, also sees Ben’s death as her fault because she let him leave the house after they had an argument instead of calling him back in to apologize, and that’s why he wasn’t safe at home that day. Parkers, man, they’re crazy.
Peter views his uncle’s death as a result of his inaction, and devotes the rest of his existence to making up for it, determined to never slip again. Not a naturally good person at all, he has to put in massive amounts of
work to leaving the world better than he found it in every aspect of his
life, and he often resents both the people he’s helping and the people
he’s thwarting, sometimes in loud and creatively phrased ways.
His character warps dramatically between age 15, when we meet him, up to age almost-30 where he’s been allowed to age to before being stalled out because older characters are perceived as selling more poorly. When the writing is strong you can see this as the direct result of him putting in constant work to be less of an asshole until finally, finally, it becomes more or less instinctive. And there are drawbacks – it’s pretty clear that his lifestyle of putting helping people and the greater good first compounded with his own pride and standards has prevented him from achieving conventional success in life – but he’s a happier person for it. He befriends old enemies he only disliked because he was quick to judge and write people off. He finds the worth in others and they respond by seeing the worth in him. The people he’s fiercely protective of can love him back because the work he’s put in has made it easy.
When it’s down to the wire he finds he’s as satisfied with his mark on the world as he can get.
Where Bruce’s path is solidified in childhood but he waits to act on a child’s
determination until he can blend it with the capabilities of an adult
(the ultimate child’s fantasy, acted out to perfection), Peter’s story is initially a bildungsroman. His
life is upended when he’s in high school, an uncomfortably liminal age,
and he starts acting on his philosophical realizations about his duty
to his community immediately. (Awareness of this is relevant to why this character is constantly rolled back to a more youthful age or demeanor, even though it defeats the purpose of a coming of age story to deny showing the results at the end.) Peter has no equivalent to taking in a round of Robins because as one who sees his tragic origin as his mistake, his way of improving the world is through improving himself, having embraced the idea that the self is a tool with which to improve the world. I. e. with great power there must also come great responsibility.
No equivalent from a story philosophy perspective, that is. From a ‘spinoffs sell’ perspective, uh. *closet door behind me that was groaning dangerously explodes outwards and it’s just full of spider-people, who I try to cram back inside ineffectually*
Peter also gets timelines where his originating tragedy doesn’t happen. In “Jumping the Tracks”, where Peter’s aunt dies of a random event that ISN’T perceivable as his fault, he becomes Spider-Man…the insanely successful media personality. He uses and then falls out of contact with his uncle and doesn’t help a single person in his entire life. “One More Day” describes two hypothetical/alternate timelines where nothing weird happens to him and we can assume that if he lost either of his guardians it couldn’t be perceived as something he could have changed. In one he just gets by, and in the other he becomes a successful industrialist a la Tony Stark. The biggest thing they have in common is that in both he’s an empty, hateful husk of a person. In Spider-Gwen where his family is fine because his friend gets superpowers instead of him he does mad science on himself because he’s developed an inferiority complex about that and becomes one of her villains very briefly and then her tragic origin story death very permanently. He’s shaping up to do basically the same thing in the new Spider-Verse title when it shows a world where it’s his aunt who has powers and nobody’s dead yet because she’s just that cool. That Peter was last seen with a vial of alien goo he snuck off a crime scene sitting on his desk and I am delighted/concerned. …I’m better at pulling specific Marvel references than DC references, sorry.
I say this lovingly: What a bitch.
He’s a naturally self-centered person, gifted with genius he’s only interested in using to benefit himself and the dangerously small handful of people he’s claimed as his own, and he’s not even very good at that second part. He’s angry at the world for being unfair to him. In his base state the dude needs workshopping. Extreme outside intervention.
Peter cannot stop helping for as long as he is able because that would
be giving in to his flaws and repeating what he sees as his greatest mistake, and if the boy does
anything it’s learn. He has choices about what kind of person to be he comes dangerously close to not recognizing for what they are. In on-track timelines shares Bruce’s backstory-related aversion to guns to a smaller extreme (it’s a teen’s calculated dislike instead of a child’s instinctive horror) but not those for murder in extreme circumstances or occasionally maiming unpleasant people out of spite. I’ve pulled at the DC hero operating on child logic and the Marvel hero operating on teen logic a few times already, and I do think that can broadly describe the two companies in some senses. But I’m just going to note here that that isn’t necessarily indicative of differing maturity in the telling of, reading of, or characters within these stories. Pulling on life stages to construct a story is pretty abstract, and also, in some ways teens are functionally dumberthan small children. See: Peter’s pragmatic/realist philosophy means he doesn’t cotton on to what the narrative has known and enforced via deus ex machina the entire time, that he can’t kill in cold blood without losing himself, until he’s like 27.
The moral here is that you choose whether or not you’re going to try to have a net benefit on the world over the course of your life. You put in the work, and it’s hard, and it will hurt you sometimes, and it’s not a choice you ever get to relax and stop making. You never get to be sure and stop evaluating yourself. Sometimes to be good you have to cut away pieces of yourself and defer lives you could have lived that would have had things you want in them and just hope that you’ll still be happy more than you aren’t.
That kind of story is more like directions for bettering oneself, but not much of a balm for the soul tired by the harshness of humankind.
So I won’t buy into a story about dumb unthinking goodness from Peter, because I know he’s basically an averted supervillain. That’s why he interests me, so I am highly disinterested in letting go of it to sit back and enjoy a story that runs counter to the trait. Likewise I won’t enjoy a story about Bruce being a naturally bad person and either overcoming that or succumbing to it, even though I love stories about innately terrible people, unless you explain it with a SFF alignment swap, because the part of me crying out for stories with people displaying uncomplicated goodness has already latched onto him and it hurts like hell to talk it into letting go. They’re both driven geniuses drawing on a strong well of rage whose strengths are also their weaknesses and I just do not want to see the same kind of stories about them at all.
With Bruce, and Diana, and Clark, I want stories about people who just aren’t wired to let injustice stand when they can do something about it, no matter where you plunk them. They inspire. With Marvel’s (harder to list by highlights) mainliners, I want stories about people who have to work at being good in more ways than keeping their biceps toned so that they can be efficient at both punching and hugging. They teach.
Both flavors are fucking fun: That’s important.
DC has other Earths and elseworlds where the normally heroic characters are evil because alignment swaps are cool. It’s fun, rule of cool, and fueled by aesthetic. Even when they’re framed as “in spite of a nail” timeline changes the logic often fails to hold together (it’s easier in adaptations that can construct their world differently from the start!), because most of their flagship characters who it seems the most fun to write as villainous just. Wouldn’t go evil in the conditions displayed without acting wildly out of character. You can’t just change some events or actions. You have to rummage around inside of them and flip the ideas making them up on their heads.
Marvel is also full of alternate villain timelines, and with a lot of them you have to just go “yikes wow” because yeah your fave…would do that, whoops. Keeping them in character, no handwaving, and also evil, writes itself to the point of being faintly alarming.
Obviously both companies have an insane number of characters and creators and so have examples from the other character type. But it’s a rule of thumb.
I’ve been zoomed pretty far in because that’s more interesting to me and easier to construct a tight point with, but now I’m going to zoom way out with one last big company vs. company generalization. *knocks back a shot and then starts talking at the speed of drug commercial side effects* At day 1 Superman is the Ubermensch philosophy conceived as villainous and then redesigned to be heroic before it could hit publishing, Wonder Woman is
about female supremacy, and Batman is just about how it is NOT cool to
join organized crime, kids, stay in school. But Batman actually ends up being the one most
embodying the Ubermensch philosophy. He’s an allegedly normal
human who is just incidentally functioning beyond human peak, and that extends
to his moral fiber. I’m once again not saying either way is better here when I note
that DC actually runs on this kind of exaggerated concept of what a person is a
lot. Because of this it fits the widely disseminated idea that superheroes are comparable
to modern pantheons of gods much better than Marvel, which is more standard
sci-fi “what if we added this impossible thing to the real world”
They can’t be considered the exact same way. People
not realizing that DC is a step further away from reality than they’re used to because they
know so much about it from pop culture osmosis without ever needing to
consider the source is why it’s more prone to amusing “logic failures”
with its premises. Most fans, including me, have like five reasons in their back pocket to justify why Batman can have a child sidekick, can’t kill his villains, doesn’t get Superman to solve all his problems, whatever, but the actual reason is “BECAUSE. You need to relax.” Which people aren’t trained to do on that level the way they are not to get hung up asking exactly how Spider-Man’s webs work.
Features defying logic are baked into the DCU source
material to support stories about characters who are structured to embody concepts more
than to be easily mistaken for people you could run
into on the street. It’s epic-level storytelling, where any child
off the street is a god or a symbol. Versus how in Marvel even gods and symbols are
fallible people if you dig in a little bit. This propagates on every level these companies operate on, like how DC made up a bunch of settings that are like ideas of cities where Marvel stuck everybody in New York City and informed their setting with the real world.
They’re both good. They’re wildly incompatible on a level that extends way beyond specific characters having easy to contrast traits.
i heard lucifer say michael was insane and was “sitting in the corner singing show tunes and touching himself” in s11 and then i got to s15 when we see michael again and not only was he NOT crazy he was dating his vessel so its like hey ok what exactly did he mean by that . hey. h
me three months ago watching 15x08 like oh so THATS what that was about. okay.
[Caption: the last reblog includes an screenshot of the tags left on the post by user transguyhawkeye. They say, “What’s that noise coming from the cage? It sounds like Adam and Michael are… no, they couldn’t be.”]
there are a million ways that one can and should tie black sails to treasure island and examine how the show has fundamentally shifted the entire structure of the novel (in a million phenomenal ways i admit theyre all really fantastic ways) but one of the most bizarrely satisfying changes that has resulted from black sails giving a narrative to the history of Treasure Island is how it changes the introduction of Billy Bones and John Silver in the novel.
this isn’t really an intelligent post i’m a little too brain rotted today for that but in the novel Billy Bones is very much your cliched old sailor who’s kind of going insane from years being marooned and dealing with life on the sea, etc, and most adaptations make him a healthy mix of unnerving but also generally kind to Jim Hawkins. You’re supposed to look at him and sympathize with him as the old sailor who’s on the run from pirates and you are supposed to feel some kind of fear or momentary grief when he gets the black spot and dies at the arrival of the infamous Long John Silver at the Benbow Inn.
but by making him the one responsbile for Long John Silver, by making him the puppeteer in the creation of this myth that takes John Silver and molds him against his will into this now dethroned king of pirates, and giving us the fallout of their entire relationship through s3 and s4, it changes the entire confrontation from an innocent if not haunted old sailor fearing for his life to a man knowing full fuckin well that he is going to one day further answer for the actions he took.
rather than making him just the cliche monstrous pirate, it places Silver in the role of avenger coming to settle this account that has been open and festering like a wound for decades, allowing him to not only try and get his hands on the map to Flint’s teasure (a significant point of closure of course) but to also make sure that Billy has recieved his own Black Spot and answers to it. To get a little bit of closure for himself as well under the guise of hunting Flint’s treasure.
your empathy as a reader is meant of course to be entirely with Jim and his mother but there is an arguement that could be made that by offering this history, black sails has placed the reader’s spare empathy entirely on silver, changing a narrative thats been established sinced the books publication in 1883
when i say the depth black sails offers to an otherwise unreliably narrated novel (that i never the less have loved since childhood) makes me go absolutely insane this is 100% the kind of shit im talking about