filler text

We don’t have any of the large predators we used to (black bears, mountain lions, or gray wolves) but still retain large deer populations. If nothing is removing animals, they’ll quickly overload the carrying capacity of the environment and have massive losses to starvation and disease that can also pass on to livestock. Human hunters replace the large predators that our landscape can no longer support.

It’s kinder to euthanize an un-releasable hawk rather than try to find it a permanent home with humans. Wildlife rehabs have extremely limited space and resources and are usually run entirely on donated money and volunteer time. Only a few are large and stable enough to care for permanent residents long-term, and those spots are few and far between.

An invasive species poses a danger to threatened native wildlife. I will admit- Australian possums are adorable. But not in New Zealand, where they’re an invasive species that eats the eggs of ground-dwelling birds that previously had no such predators. The landowners I worked with replanting native bush, all native Maori, had no qualms about setting the dogs on them.

because harveys role in the plot is adjacent to what Jason's is. he poses a clear danger to robin that makes the guardian/mentor reconsider the wisdom of having a kid sidekick at all. jason's actually there to make mia think about it, moreso than ollie, but their role as the antagonist of the story raises similar questions.

and i get that with comics in particular, your emotional reaction to what you read will always be influenced by what you see the fandom doing, and you do have... like im fairly sure the harv apologists are just like "i dont care who he hurt he looked good doing it" (and tbeyre so valid for that). and by comparison the jason legion, for we are many, are this whole scatterplot range of--some people only like him as a villain/think hes "unredeemable" (🙄), and some people want every bad thing hes ever done to be whooshed away by "pit madness" (🙄), and some people who. i have no ill will towards them but theyre fans of the new guy, the prime earth guy, and thats just a different character from my guy to the point that hes not even really relevant to ga 69-72 when we talk about it-- but nevertheless theyre in the same fandom, and the guy they like has the same name. so that can color peoples interpretations of whats on the page jf, for example, any of those factions really grates their cheese.

anyway. all that aside i do still feel like people get very angry at jason for being the antagonist--being a supervillain, even--maybe because he's so sympathetic by comparison in under the red hood/lost days (or i guess stuff the new guy's been in, if thats more your speed). like why did he terrorize mia! why did he scare her and beat her up!

and while i think the answer to that, from a character motivation perspective, is so obvious as to be. fucking asinine to need it spelled out-- the real answer is because as the storys antagonist he is there to challenge the protagonist. and in this case the challenge is not only the physical fight, its also a challenge to the question of whether or not plucky teen sidekicks should still exist in a post-death in the family dcu, where the baddies are badder and anyone can die.

r:yo was never asking that *specific* question, so lets just set it aside. thank you for your help harvey.

jason is a much easier target for reader anger than ollie because well. jason is absolutely doing something *wrong,* and he knows it, but he also has a fucking point, *and he knows it.*

ga01 was ABSOLUTELY engaging with and exploring aspects of the kid/teen sidekick trope that we know and love--mia kills a man on her test run, and the responsibility for mia being in a position where she felt like she had to do that, and the resulting trauma, is placed squarely and correctly on ollies shoulders. mias origin story meant she was never safe in her fucking life until she moved in with ollie, and now she finds out its left her with something permanent and life-changing--shes HIV+. what is safety? what is childhood? what does she want out of life, faced with her own mortality? she wants to help people. she wants to be a hero. and the way this unfolds, in the context of the dcu and how it works, you can see why ollie says yes this time. (and im so so glad he did.)

and jason shows up 20ish issues later when shes good and established to be like, "hi. you sure about that?"

and this is a chicken or the egg kind of situation where jason would not have done this to a civilian. shes a superhero. shes in uniform. there is an inherent danger to doing that and while you know that--both you the reader and you, speedy, green arrows junior partner and teen titan--nobody demonstrates it like jason "trolley problem" todd, both as the first notable dead sidekick and an incredibly dangerous, incredibly *terrifying* person. one who is *hell-bent* on *proving* it to you.

and when i say chicken and egg i mean while jason's responsible for his own actions, Ollie is explicitly responsible for mia's safety. imo blowing up the school wasn't to scare mia--it was to scare ollie. jason took the stakes of what it means to be speedy, or to *have* a speedy, and made them concrete. and that takes the concept of a plucky teen sidekick and makes it uncomfortable again because, god, she's just a kid. should she really be fucking doing this? (should her guardian really be *letting* her do this?)

(and people forget this, or purposely ignore it, but jason cant be more than 2 years older than her in this continuity, using tim as a benchmark. and i say this not because i want to emphasize that he would see mia as a peer rather than a child--though he would--or to imply he wasnt responsible for his actions--he was. i say this bc what was he doing in the supervillainy, he should have been at the club)

what i was getting at was i think rather than allowing the concept to exist in that gray area it is so much easier, so much more comfortable, to instead just be like. Well jason shouldn't have done that. he could have done it a different way. if he never put her in danger she wouldn't have been in that danger that night. and yknow all of those things are true but they don't negate the point he was making (and he was also doing more than that yk but this post is already Long lol), which was that that uniform puts a target on her chest. are you prepared for what that means?

and the difference between jason doing this, and Harvey, aside from the relative annoyingness of the people who want to condemn or exonerate them, is that. jason is not just a supervillain. he is a victim of *exactly* this thorny question. and he became a supervillain directly in response to this. you can not separate his actions here from the part where he knows what the fuck hes talking about, because it happened to him. and to make that less thorny, less uncomfortable, the focus turns away from the point he was making back to. Well he shouldn't have done it like he did it. while also ignoring that...... he did it like he did it because he knew how it felt, what it meant, to be a hero. if he didn't do it like he did it, would it have gotten through to them at all? would we still be talking about it like 20 years later?