we all sell our souls, sooner or later

(id in alt!)

but arguably, despite the appearances, it is not ma gunn who truly takes leslie's place in the narrative. that place being, of course, both the symbol of the hope of the crime alley and a counterpoint to batman's philosophy. it is, instead, the main character of second chances -- jason. jason, whom bruce meets in the same alley his parents died, but who makes bruce laugh upon their first encounter. jason, who has a strong sense of justice, despite it not quite aligning with bruce's -- jason who does not care about what bruce thinks of him being a thief, jason who insists it does not make him a crook; jason who has no care for the label of 'criminality' in itself (just as leslie, who insists that talking of 'criminals' in the alley is non-productive and that in targeting them, bruce would just prey on those unfortunate). jason who is to become gotham's light as robin, but who also is tied to its darkest place.

there is, of course, a problem here -- jason is a child. and so, what was seen as a genuine challenge to batman before -- the lack of care for the 'criminal' label, is now seen as a corruption of the youth that can be "treated" like all disease that crime is (and can be also used as an excuse for the child endangerment - by collins and so, by bruce whom he writes too). and surely, soon enough, without much commentary from the narrative itself, after a timeskip, we are introduced to jason whose background is of very little relevance. as a child, and as robin, he is (for a time) malleable. he believes in batman just as dick grayson did. until starlin takes the run over, and jason is to become a 'challenge' again -- but this time there is no authentic consideration for the politics and societal reality behind it. the conflict that leads to aditf is first and foremost one around bruce's role as a parent, and less so about his strategy. and even in the garzonas' case, there's this confusion -- jason's complaints are not about the system, but about their efficiency. it's all back to batman's theoretical framework. and when jason comes back from the dead, year after -- that is what happens with the red hood modus operandi too. all of this a direct reference to competence of batman, jason's background becoming a stereotype it was supposed to go against.

thankfully, before all that happens, and quite hurriedly post-crisis, someone (barr) realises leslie needs a comeback -- and it is the best she was ever written, her voice clear and strong. my beginning... and my probable end is, to me, the batman thesis. here we have bruce wayne, loving -- and here we have all of bruce's flaws exposed. leslie's first ever complaint post-crisis is about jason's role as robin, and so she becomes a cassandra, but it's so important to pay attention to their relationships. "you're doing it for yourself" is what leslie says, and she is right in believing it is not jason who needs robin. and jason, there, on a hospital bed, between them -- this is what his role in the narrative becomes. a consequence of a grand idea of batman that leslie was always against; but also someone who's life stretches in between these two beliefs, someone who came all the way from being so like leslie, only for him to become so entangled in vigilantism that there's hardly any reference to any of it left. and leslie was there, to see.

"the man who couldn't handle the responsibility of having a 19-year old partner suddenly decides it's all right to take on a sidekick. i think i have the right to know why." batman (1940) #416

What's your biggest unpopular opinion on Jason, and your least favorite popular/fandom opinion on him?

disclaimer: i’m moving blogs. still here to go through my askbox, but you will find me at @boyfridged most of the time.

i'm very flattered, thank you!! and sorry this took me so long to answer. and it did take me so long 1. because it’s really hard to tell what is actually an unpopular opinion (i did thankfully find myself in a circle of mutuals who mostly share the same intuitions when it comes to his character) and 2. because I mentally put a label on it “asks to get me assassinated.” and I guess the take that i have requires quite careful wording. 

so, my unpopular take is that from in-universe point of view, jason shouldn’t be a vigilante, and it would be best for the storytelling around him to focus on this fact. and i’m not saying that in a mean, moralistic nor diminishing way. i just think that jay’s storyline is a story of everything that can go wrong with a sidekick, and of how vigilantism can traumatise people into oblivion, and completely annihilate their ability to function normally. part of it is a result of the fact that imo jason isn’t naturally suited for vigilantism (that is not to talk about his skills nor efficiency in it, i will get back to it shortly), and part of it is a result of the circumstances in which he was introduced into it, and of course the subsequent trauma.

you could say “uhm every superhero story is like that, he’s not special,” but typically, when you think about characters such as bruce wayne or dick grayson etc., the event that comes to mind when you think about their biggest trauma is something that… pushed them into vigilantism? and vigilantism supposedly helped them in some ways? (it can be argued against, but that’s an underlying assumption) (+even without a tragic backstory, characters usually have much more agency in their decision to become vigilantes). and in case of jay, his biggest trauma isn’t anything that came before robin, and his life was awfully fucking sad, so i think that it says something. his biggest trauma is associated with what he went through already as robin and then retraumatising events that followed his resurrection. 

it’s really puzzling to me that this distinction is never deliberately written about nor truly brought up in comics…? i think the closest we came to this was, ironically, starlin’s run (when alfred straight up suggests that maybe robin just isn’t good for jason) and countdown (where jay intends to leave the superhero community altogether). 

okay, so you can say: vigilantism is kinda shitty for you. breaking news, we’ve known this already.

except there's something, in my opinion, that makes jason’s case special and more nuanced. it seems, at first glance, that with all the love and compassion jason has, he should be great material for a vigilante still. but he clearly isn’t. why is that?

the crushing proportion of other characters have moral systems, coping mechanisms, and understanding of vigilantism that make this life at least possible for them. on the other hand, jason’s personality, his lived experience, and his moral stance makes vigilantism extremely unsustainable. i mentioned it before in my post about eoc, but most (especially 1st gen, but not only, i’d argue that most former teenage superheroes also came to this point as well) vigilantes, even if associated with love and compassion as the core of their actions, have understanding of vigilantism and moral codes that jason doesn’t possess. (for a long while i was on a “jason has a moral code but it’s casually bastardised by most writers” team but since then i have thought about it a lot and my current take is that he was good at following orders as robin, and has some provisional rules as the red hood, but they’re nowhere near an actual code. as i said in the linked post, i think morality is more of an on-going emotional practice for him). and it all makes sense! let's circle back to bruce for a moment. of course, the reason for which he doesn’t kill is grounded within his own beliefs, but he is also very painfully aware of the thin line that vigilantes walk on when it comes to the law and being trusted by the public. i'd argue he is very conscious of the fact that being a vigilante comes with responsibility of cultivating a certain ethos. he had a lot of time to think about it! in many ways, he invented it. and it’s practical. it's what makes this life possible.

jason doesn’t have it. jason’s idea of vigilantism isn’t carefully designed nor sophisticated, jason’s idea of vigilantism is that he is in the field and he has power to do things, so he has to do them. he has to trust his moral intuitions. and in many ways, he’s not wrong – it's not a flawed view to hold, especially not in the ordinary life. but that also means that there are no lines that he won’t cross if he thinks he can help or fix the situation. but in the world that batman introduces us to (a world in which, to quote le guin on an unrelated matter, there’s no ends, but only means), it’s self-destructive. to compare him again to bruce, bruce is self-sacrificial, but his conceptual understanding of vigilantism and his moral code protect him in some ways. jason’s moral judgements and actions are unrestrained and radical (not to say that they’re reckless or inefficient; he’s still a great strategist and can be even overly careful if it’s required). and that is set in a world where evil never stops. we already know that the joker will always come back, for example. what does it mean for jason? he will try to match the energy, of course, and he’s not stopping either. bruce is similar in that aspect, yet he has a whole insurance set that helps him deal with extreme situations. there's an offset. and jason doesn’t have any. he won’t ever hit the breaks. i think you know where i’m going with this metaphor. 

so i guess my take is that… bruce’s outlook on vigilantism is, against the popular opinion, very rational. but jason just brings his heart into it and nothing else. and that’s just catastrophic.

this is really me just pushing the “love is his fatal flaw” agenda again tbh, but with additional emphasis on why the same trait isn’t that tragic for other characters who share it. also this is why it’s so crucial to me that he should have a civilian arc…