Call me Iz

One machine works. Two are “out of order.” One sounds like it’s possessed.

Wait- do you wanna see a picture I took of a worm? I was testing out my new camera lense and I saw this little guy.

Cutest worm to ever be.

We can nickname it Greg 😭

Love the way the skyline looks from the bus window when I’m half asleep.

You seem to be in a poetic mood today. I do agree that Gotham's quite paradoxal though, this city's like my roommate.

Alright, Iz. Iz it is.

Gotham isn’t paradoxical. It’s honest. It shows you exactly what it is every night: the good, the ugly, the communal laundry machines that eat your last dollar and your favorite hoodie. No false advertising.

And for the record? If you left for twenty bucks, I’d personally Venmo you thirty just to see if you’d actually get on the bus. You wouldn’t. You’d be halfway out of the city limits, camera in your lap, pretending not to miss it already.

I don't know if I agree with you on that one. False advertising is kind of Gotham's thing, I should know. It's sort of why I do photography, capture Gotham's truth and all that crap.

Fair. To be totally honest I don't think I could ever leave Gotham. It sucks usually sometimes but it's home in a way I never had before all this.

You talk about false advertising like you’ve got a personal vendetta against it. Neon over rot. Smiles over bruises. I get it. Gotham sells hope in glossy brochures and delivers it with fine print.

But now I’m curious. Where do I fall in your little documentary, Iz?

Am I part of the lie? A cape and a symbol people point to so they can pretend everything’s handled? A distraction Gotham uses to polish its image?

Or am I part of the truth? The messy, bruised, rooftop-to-rooftop reality that doesn’t photograph clean but exists anyway?

Or am I just… part of all that crap?

If you’re out there capturing Gotham’s truth, would you ever turn the lens on me? Not the silhouette. Not the myth. Me.

I do have a vendetta against false advertising.

I don’t need slogans for it.

I’ve seen what’s underneath the polish. I grew up around it. Bristol does a great job of looking charming from the outside. So did my family.

Turns out you can scrub something until it shines and it’ll still be rotten.

Neon over rot. Smiles over bruises. Bristol’s good at that. So was my family. Had to lie more than I liked when I was younger.

I don’t anymore.

You asked where you fall.

I’ll answer because I said I don’t lie- and because I’m in a decent mood.

To me? Vigilantes are part of the lie.

Not because you don’t help. You do. I’ve seen it. But you make promises no one can keep. You speak like a press conference. You’re polished. Controlled. You win.

It photographs clean. Glossy and pretty.

It looks like if enough rooftops get crossed, enough punches land, enough people get saved… the rot might shrink.

But it doesn’t.

A friend of mine once said hope is the most dangerous thing in the world. That it hurts more than it heals. That sometimes believing you’ll be saved keeps you from bracing for impact.

You sell hope.

That’s noble.

Until it isn’t.

Superheroes are sparkles and silhouettes. Symbols people cling to so they don’t have to look too long at what’s underneath.

And sometimes I think the glitter is too bright to see past.

If I turned a lens on you?

I wouldn’t shoot the cape. Or the skyline. Or the myth.

I’d try to find the split second before you jump.

The part where you hesitate. The part where you’re tired. The part that isn’t winning.

Not to prove you’re a lie.

To prove you’re real.

About the vendetta against false advertising, I get it. Cities polish themselves. Families do too. Places like Bristol can look like a postcard from the outside while things underneath are… less charming. Growing up around that kind of shine-and-hide routine would make anyone suspicious of slogans.

So I can see why vigilantes land in your ‘glossy’ category. A cape on a rooftop photographs well. A symbol cutting across the skyline looks clean, controlled. It makes the story feel simple, like there’s a plan, like someone’s in charge, like enough punches and patrols might slowly bleach the rot out of Gotham.

You’re right about one thing though: the rot doesn’t shrink that easily. No one in a mask is fixing this city. Anyone who tells you they are is either selling something or lying to themselves. What we actually do is smaller and less glamorous. We interrupt bad nights. We make it harder for certain people to operate comfortably. Sometimes that’s enough to matter to the person who needed help that night.

You said hope can be dangerous. It can be. People cling to it and get hurt when it breaks. But the alternative, believing nothing will ever change, has a way of turning into permission. If nothing matters, people stop trying. Gotham collapses pretty fast in that version of the story.

As for your photograph… the second before the jump, the tired part, the hesitation… well, what can I say? That moment is real. Every night. Not because the symbol is fake, but because the person carrying it is human enough to know what they’re jumping into. And honestly? If you caught that frame, you wouldn’t be exposing a lie. You’d just be showing the part people don’t usually look for.

Don't I know it. My family’s all glitter. Looks solid from a distance, but hold onto it too long and it slips straight through your fingers.

Huh. You admitted to it.

That’s new. Most people in masks lean harder into the myth when you poke it.

You’re right though, in a way. I don’t think anyone could detox Gotham. The rot’s in the foundation. To rip it out you’d have to tear the whole place down to the bedrock.

Doesn’t mean I don’t wish someone would try.

And I don’t think the “no hope” version of the story is quite the apocalypse you make it sound like. If nobody expected saving, maybe people would stop waiting for it.

Might be safer that way.

Sadder, sure. But safer.

…

As for your rooftop photography invitation.

You realise how that sounds, right? A masked vigilante asking a stranger from the internet to meet them on a roof in Gotham.

My criminology professors would have a collective stroke.

Still.

The skyline does photograph well from rooftops.

So maybe I’ll bring the camera.

And the glitter metaphor… I get that too. Things that look solid from a distance can dissolve the moment you actually rely on them. Families, cities, reputations. Gotham’s built a whole identity on that trick.

You’re right that most people in masks lean harder into the myth when someone questions it. It’s easier. Symbols stay powerful when no one admits the human parts underneath. But pretending those parts don’t exist doesn’t make them disappear.

About tearing Gotham down to the bedrock… believe me, that idea crosses people’s minds more often than you’d think. The problem is the same one you’d run into with any demolition job: people live here. A lot of innocent ones. When the foundation is rotten, fixing it without crushing everyone standing on it becomes… complicated.

You said the ‘no hope’ version might actually be safer because people wouldn’t wait to be saved. Maybe. But there’s another side to that equation. When nobody expects help, the people who hurt others stop worrying about consequences. Waiting to be saved is dangerous. Believing no one will ever show up can be worse.

As for how the invitation sounds… yep, I’m aware. A masked vigilante suggesting a rooftop meeting in Gotham is basically a case study your criminology professors would warn students about.

So, you can draw your own conclusions from that.

Anyway-

The glitter is there all right. Gotham, my family, they're similar in that way. It makes me wonder what'll happen when the glitter falls through.

You’re right about one thing. Pretending the human parts don’t exist doesn’t make them disappear.

It just makes them harder to see.

Which is sort of the whole problem with symbols. They flatten things. Smooth the edges. Make complicated people look simple from far enough away.

Good for morale. Great for posters.

Less great for the truth.

And you’re not wrong about consequences either. People who hurt others absolutely thrive when no one expects anyone to intervene.

Sure, it would be dangerous, but is it more dangerous to have no consequences, or too many?

Whatever your answer is, I’m not arguing for apathy.

Just… caution around the stories we tell ourselves about how much any one person can fix, about how much anyone can fix.

Because Gotham has a habit of eating its heroes- whether the hero be a larger-than-life person wearing a cape, or just a nice person.

But do I? Do I really know you?

I don't think either of us really know each other, not in any way that matters.

You’re surprisingly comfortable with the idea of someone pointing a camera at the hesitation.

Most people who build themselves into symbols spend a lot of time making sure nobody sees the seams.

You’re basically inviting me to look for them.

That’s either very honest…

or very confident- in what? I'm not sure.

Either way, it’s interesting.

About the glitter falling through… that’s the question Gotham keeps asking too. When the shine finally slips away, what’s left holding everything together? Sometimes the answer isn’t pretty. Sometimes it’s just stubborn people refusing to let the whole thing collapse.

You’re right that symbols flatten things. They turn complicated people into silhouettes. That’s why they work: distance smooths out the edges. It makes something messy easier to believe in. Good for morale, like you said. Good for posters. But truth doesn’t fit neatly into poster frames.

Still, the symbol isn’t always there to replace the truth. Sometimes it’s there to give people something visible to rally around while the truth does its slower, quieter work underneath.

You asked about consequences, whether it’s more dangerous to have none or too many. Gotham’s tried both at different times. When consequences disappear, the worst people grow comfortable. When consequences become overwhelming, they start hitting the wrong people. The balance between the two is messy and imperfect, but the alternative on either side tends to spiral.

Your caution about hero stories is fair. Gotham has a reputation for chewing people up. Capes, badges, good intentions… it doesn’t discriminate much. Anyone who tries to push back against the city’s worst parts ends up paying something for it. That’s part of the reality symbols tend to hide.

And you’re right about something else: we don’t actually know each other. Not really. A few messages don’t change that. What you know is the outline, the role, the reputation, the rooftop silhouette people talk about. That’s not the same as knowing the person.

You wondered why I’d be comfortable with someone looking for the seams. Because they’re there whether anyone photographs them or not. A symbol that depends on nobody ever noticing the seams is fragile. The moment someone spots one thread out of place, the whole thing risks unraveling. But a symbol that people know is carried by a human being? That one tends to survive a little longer.

My convincing didn't take much effort. By then I think she’d already found someone… something to stay for.

As for the glitter-

If it ever disappeared completely, I think what’s left would just be the rot. The corruption that runs through the city’s roots.

But honestly?

I don’t think the glitter ever really goes away.

Lies behave a lot like glitter. You can sweep and scrub and vacuum all you want, and months later you’re still finding pieces of it stuck in places you swore were clean.

Gotham runs on that trick.

And I get what you’re saying about symbols. Distance makes things easier to believe in. Clean lines, simple stories, a shape people can point to and say there, that’s the good side.

I understand why people need that.

What I’m not convinced about is whether the symbol actually helps the quieter work underneath… or just distracts from it.

But I suppose that’s the kind of thing you only figure out by watching long enough.

Your version of the myth versus the person is interesting, though.

Certainty versus persistence.

Most people would pick certainty. It's a better story, cleaner, easier to believe in.

Persistence is messier.

Harder to sell (probably closer to the truth).

But Gotham has always been better at messy things.

We don't know each other.

Right now, you’re a silhouette people talk about, and I’m a stranger with a camera who doesn’t trust shiny things.

Which, admittedly, is a strange combination of people to end up having this conversation.

Still-

If Gotham really does run on stubborn people showing up anyway…

I suppose one more person climbing a fire escape with a camera wouldn’t change the equation much.

But don’t expect flattering lighting.

I’m not very good at photographing myths.

People, though-

And the glitter… yeah, Gotham does that. It coats everything. Charity galas, political speeches, shiny towers pretending the streets below them don’t exist. You’re right that it never really disappears. You can scrape it off the surface, but traces stay behind. Cities learn how to live with their own illusions. But glitter isn’t the only thing that lingers. So do stubborn people.

You’re probably right that if the shine vanished overnight, the rot underneath would be ugly. Corruption, violence, systems that have been bending the wrong way for decades. Gotham wouldn’t look heroic without the lighting. But that doesn’t mean the glitter is the only thing keeping the city upright.

You wondered whether symbols actually help the quieter work underneath… or just distract from it. Honestly Both. Sometimes a symbol gives people something visible to rally around. Something simple enough to move them when the truth is too complicated to process all at once. Other times it absolutely becomes a distraction. A spotlight that pulls attention away from the people doing slower, less dramatic work: teachers, social workers, journalists, the neighbor who decides to intervene instead of looking away… I think symbols are tools. Sometimes they build things. Sometimes they hide things. And the difference usually depends on who’s looking at them.

As for the myth-versus-person and certainty versus persistence thing… your opinion’s accurate. Certainty’s the version people prefer. It’s comforting. It’s cinematic. It lets people believe someone has the whole situation under control. Persistence’s much less impressive. It’s showing up even when you know the city’s still broken. It’s doing the same work tomorrow that you did yesterday. It’s understanding you might never see the final result. That’s not a very glamorous story. But it’s the only one Gotham actually runs on.

You’re right about something else too: we don’t know each other. Not really. I’m a figure people talk about, and you’re a photographer who distrusts shiny things. But I’ll give you my perspective on your last point. You said you’re not good at photographing myths. That’s probably a good thing. Myths are easy pictures. They’re composed before the camera even comes out. You already know what the audience expects to see. People are harder. They move. They contradict themselves. They look strong in one moment and exhausted in the next.

Careful. If you keep that up, people might start believing Gotham runs on good intentions instead of caffeine and spite.

But I get what you mean.

Cities aren’t really made of the stories they tell about themselves. They’re made of the people who keep showing up in them, whether they should or not.

Some of them build things.

Some of them break them.

Most of them just try to get through the day without becoming part of the problem.

Your point about myths being easy photographs is painfully accurate, though.

You already know the angle. The lighting. The silhouette against the skyline. It’s basically a template.

People ruin that sort of neat composition.

They blink at the wrong time. Shift their weight. Look tired when the moment was supposed to feel heroic.

It’s inconvenient.

Also the only reason the picture’s worth taking.

So yes. You’re right about one thing.

If I pointed a camera at you, I wouldn’t be trying to prove whether Batgirl is a myth or not.

I’d be trying to catch the second where the myth slips a little and the person carrying it shows through.

That’s the frame that actually tells you something.

As for the fire escape.

If I stayed on the street imagining the shot, I’d just end up with the same picture everyone else already has.

And honestly?

That one’s a bit overdone.

So I suppose I’ll bring the camera.

Don’t worry. I’m not expecting a miracle.

Easy, it's the only city I'm not worried about getting banned from!

Unlike that traitor, Thompson.

(That is a challenge btw)

Mood. And to think the rat was among us all along.

Among us, you say.

Huh, I actually didn't think of that.

R.I.P Mr and Mrs Tallis. They were terrible while they lived, it was terrible how they died, it evens out.

If R.I.P was a synonym for 'screw you' then I would agree.

It is, at least in this context.

Ok, getting banned from Paris was not his fault. We just got caught.

I still blame the traitor!

Easy, it's the only city I'm not worried about getting banned from!

Unlike that traitor, Thompson.

(That is a challenge btw)

Mood. And to think the rat was among us all along.

Among us, you say.

Huh, I actually didn't think of that.

R.I.P Mr and Mrs Tallis. They were terrible while they lived, it was terrible how they died, it evens out.

If R.I.P was a synonym for 'screw you' then I would agree.

It is, at least in this context.

Ok, getting banned from Paris was not his fault. We just got caught.

Easy, it's the only city I'm not worried about getting banned from!

Unlike that traitor, Thompson.

(That is a challenge btw)

Mood. And to think the rat was among us all along.

Among us, you say.

Huh, I actually didn't think of that.

R.I.P Mr and Mrs Tallis. They were terrible while they lived, it was terrible how they died, it evens out.

Easy, it's the only city I'm not worried about getting banned from!

Unlike that traitor, Thompson.

(That is a challenge btw)

Mood. And to think the rat was among us all along.

Easy, it's the only city I'm not worried about getting banned from!

Unlike that traitor, Thompson.