#gotham meta

Disclaimer that I enjoy different headcanons of both characters, their minds and their identities! This is just my musings as a queer autistic guy who relates to Ed a lot. And I use queerphobia as a slightly broader umbrella term.

I'm also not going into the Riddler persona here, because the question of his being an alter or an extreme personification of Ed's own impulses is down to your personal interpretation. I lean more towards the latter.

1. Firstly, I can and do make jokes that both of these men are dumb in different scenarios - because they are. Gotham is a wild, inconsistent ride of a show, and Ed and Oswald's relationship itself is wholesome and toxic and gorgeous and ridiculous.

But his various moments of social awkwardness or denial doesn't strictly equate to Ed being emotionally unintelligent, and jokes about Ed being dumb in general can sometimes risk toeing the line into territory of mocking an autistic character for not handing emotions the way allistic characters do.

When Ed is seen as oblivious or cold by other characters or viewers, that doesn't mean he is those things. His brain processes emotions more internally compared to Oswald's external style - hence why Ed is quiet and controlled in many instances, and Oswald is dramatically expressive.

2. Secondly, with Ed, I think he's competent at handling his own feelings to an extent, but denial pops up to complicate things when those feelings are stigmatized (like his violent impulses, or his growing attraction to Oswald). Ed manages to accept the violent tendencies early on, but the denial around his own queerness was more persistent.

I agree that Ed's emotions are a strong driving factor for him throughout the show, however misdirected they were. Oswald tells him in 3.22 that instead of emotion he's driven by "a desperate, compulsive need to complete what you've started in exacting fashion," but that need is an emotional one for Ed, something Oswald can't automatically relate to because of their differing processing styles.

I do think he began to comprehend Ed more accurately as the show progressed from this scene, however. I've said before that Oswald understood Ed better than he understood himself, and knew more about how his brain worked than anyone else in Gotham. I still think that's true. But that was just because Oswald loved him, and therefore spent a lot of time puzzling out the difference between Ed's 'cold' or 'oblivious' exterior and his emotionally-driven actions - I wouldn't say he knew Ed perfectly from the start. It was a journey.

3. Thirdly, I feel that the biggest factor in Ed's denial about Oswald (and therefore his reaction to the Isabella debacle, and his subsequent clumsy relationship with Lee) is internalized queerphobia rather than his being emotionally inept.

In early S3 Ed's internalized queerphobic framework wouldn't permit him to accept a man falling in love with him (or a man he was already in love with returning those feelings, forcing him to confront his own desires). Once he found out Oswald loved him, Oswald had already killed Isabella and that provided Ed an easy excuse to paint over his own love for Oswald with hatred and revenge - enough for him to shoot Oswald, though he was visibly emotionally conflicted throughout his 'revenge'.

His obsessive spiralling, vivid hallucinations and drug abuse following Oswald's supposed death speaks for itself about the level of denial he was under. Ed loved him as more than just a friend and mentor, but he still couldn't admit that, so he left it at "we were best friends, I cared for him and I miss him," and leaned into his new life as the Riddler.

When Oswald showed back up, Ed defaulted to the enemies mindset again - but I would love to know if he would've actually gone through with shooting Oswald for a second time (had Oswald not outfoxed him first).

Because Ed's characterization is all over the place in S4 (like many other characters in the later seasons), I think it's fair to interpret that his continued internalized denial about Oswald is responsible for most of his emotional actions in that season.

He pivoted from half-heartedly intending to kill Oswald for freezing him to instead languishing in the Narrows, after Oswald showed him total rejection: that he wasn't even worth the label of rival anymore. Ed then latched onto Lee (a woman incredibly similar to Oswald in almost every way) in another attempt to prove to himself and others that he was straight, and not emotionally linked to Oswald except as an enemy.

Later in S4, Ed/Riddler persisted in nonsensical attempts to convince Lee to drop one of the few things that set her apart from Oswald - her compassion for the poor of the Narrows and towards others in general. If she'd gone along with that, Ed felt like he could finally possess a female version of the man he'd spent years trying not to love, something that he hoped would be 'close enough' to pacify his own queerness.

And that ended the way it was always going to - Ed and Lee stabbing each other. Oswald then proved again that he was the one person who genuinely loved Ed by saving him, and that he accepted that it might never be returned by deciding to have Strange save Lee too.

Looking at S5, it comes to my mind that Ed has a track record for making foolish decisions when he feels he loves someone. He showed Kristen proof of his killing her former boyfriend, he nearly dropped his entire life to pursue Isabella despite her being suspicious af, and he did multiple stupid things to try and convince himself that he and Lee were anything other than convenient tools for each other to use.

It was only in S5 after becoming allies again with Oswald that Ed finally started to break down his longstanding denial, accept his own sexuality and follow his emotions to make the ultimate foolish decision out of genuine love: staying in Gotham just because he loved Oswald and could not accept leaving him to die, and Oswald wasn't willing to sail away with him.

TL;DR:

1) my take on Ed being in denial about Oswald for so long is that it was more down to internalized queerphobia, rather than him just having poor overall emotional intelligence.

2) Ed being viewed as emotionally unintelligent in all situations, and/or his reduced affect being taken as a lack of emotional intelligence can be problematic, because he's autistic and his processing of emotions may not always fit conventional expectations.

3) I adore both of these fools-for-love, their dumbness and their messy relationship.

Who is Jerome?

Gotham never treats Jerome Valeska as a normal gangster who happens to laugh a lot. From his first appearance, he feels performative, hungry for attention, and disturbingly comfortable turning his own pain into a spectacle for everyone else. The show introduces him as the son of Lila Valeska and Paul Cicero, later reveals him as Jeremiah's twin, and builds him through repeated cycles of murder, public theatre, death, resurrection, and imitation, which matters for how he functions in the series; Jerome isn't only a killer inside Gotham's chaos, but one of the people teaching Gotham how to enjoy chaos as entertainment.

He becomes especially important because his violence is contagious in a cultural sense; Theo Galavan can use him, the Maniax can follow him, Dwight Pollard can worship him, and random civilians can start copying his laughter after seeing him on television. The show keeps returning to the same idea - Jerome isn't just dangerous because of what he personally does, but because he gives other people permission to let go of restraint and call it liberation, which is why his death never really ends his presence. Gotham keeps treating him as an idea that other people can inherit, distort, or continue.

I'm making a video to that Bo Burnham song about a dream guy ("You want a guy that's sweet, a guy that's not. A feminist...") 🎶

and based on season 1-3 I'd say no, because Barbara, who was harrassed by Butch, seems to be more afraid of Victor (although maybe she doesn't wanna talk about it) and Liza says he's a creep (even though he should know to be nice to Falcone's friend) 😨

But then there's the whole hitwomen thing. Does this mean anything? It could be a misandrist thing (only wanting women as subordinates), but it doesn't seem like it.

Opinions welcome!

Otherwise I'd use Lucius (aka the only good man in Gotham ❤️), but I don't remember anything canonically feminist from him (again, season 1-3).

See, to me Jerome plays with Bruce like a Jeremiah-shaped ragdoll he just stole from an expensive toy shop. The first time they meet each other, he takes Bruce hostage with a knife to Bruce's throat; in Jeremiah's introduction to the show the first time we see him on screen with Jerome, he takes Jeremiah hostage with a knife to his throat. In fact, Jeremiah's introduction wholly revolves around whether he lied about being held at knife point by Jerome or not.

Jerome also does clown makeup on Bruce in the possessed circus fiasco, and Bruce looks like the world's saddest clown. Later he's tied to a post with a massive cannon, a phallic shape, that Jerome points at him. In S4 Jerome posthumously puts a permanent makeup on Jeremiah's face with the insanity gas and Jeremiah looks like the saddest clown ever. Miah keeps pointing a gun, also a phallic shape, at Bruce in different scenes.

The way Jerome plays with Bruce is the way he continues to play with Jeremiah, even when Miah is not there. To me Jerome becomes obsessed with hurting Bruce as a part of his games because he sees in Bruce the sort of intellectual untouchable cunning characteristics that Miah possessed. Bruce looks innocent and childlike and he is anything but,, he trembles and shivers but he is also courageous and smart and always finds a way out of Jerome's story, the way Jeremiah did too. Bruce also is arrogant, high and mighty, obsessed with being the better one, the good one and pre-insanity gas Jeremiah thought he is the good one too. Jerome tells Bruce in the Hall Of Mirrors that they're alike, he also tells Jeremiah that he's just as dirty and bitter as him. In Bruce Jerome wants to destroy the kind of innocence that he continueed to destroy in Jeremiah, and there's also the talk of how Jerome trashes Wayne Manor first thing after he runs away from GCPD. Jeremiah escaped into a lavish high society lifestyle with wealthy parents after he left the circus, clawing at Wayne Manor is how Jerome deals with not being able to be a part of Jeremiah's new extravagant life and not being able to destroy it and drag Miah back to hell with him.

#< hmmm i was gonna talk about masculinity. batman. and lining up with their future selves here#but for the life of me i cannot articulate it#but! from the (limited) versions of gordon i have seen he doesn't seem like an angry dude?#no more angry than an average (relatively) decent person in gotham#so my hope (that probably will not come true) is that eventually he mellows out#maybe after seeing what excessive anger does to the rogues?#or to bruce

I agree that he's not inherently an angry person though he does carry (rightful) rage against the system and the people who keep the corrupt system going. but he does have a penchant for aggression? when push comes to shove he does get loud and aggressive and violent. and at first (early s1) he feels bad about it but to me it seems over the course of s1 he becomes more and more used to it and desensitised to it. partially this is probably the theme throughout the show how gotham (the city) changes people to become more jaded, rougher, violent, mentally unwell etc. partially it might also just be who he is no matter how much he tries to tell himself he isnt. the way he interact with some of the children in early s1 shows he is very much capable of being gentle and compassionate and soft hearted. and I miss those instances because they become rarer. and compassion is like the number one thing any human desperately needs. compassion, love and a sense of belonging. and when people dont get that they can escalate into a severe mental health crisis. (there is an idea that sometimes floats around my brain, sort of a crack thing: what if all the people in gotham who get sent to arkham, who are going through severe mental health problems that lead them to become criminals etc... what if they all got access to actually helpful mental health care? therapists and psychologists, medication if they need it. (same also goes for the people who commit crimes or join the underworld for other reasons).it wouldn't be gotham, because that fundamentally isnt the kind of city it is. but what if xD prisons like they have in scandinavian countries, free health care regardless of employment status, universal basic income, etc)

what I also keep forgetting is that he is ex-military. I'd imagine he joined voluntarily and given the fact that someone (maybe harvey?) in early s1 sarcastically calls him a war hero, I'd imagine he has some reputation of being a good fighter and reliable etc. and you can't really get anywhere in the military by being gentle, kind and soft.

lining up with their future selves I know very little about the general batman media canon but I do know Jim ends up as commissioner, so he stays within in the oppressive system, rises up through the ranks. so for what the narrative has planned for him, it's never an option for him to stop being a cop or leaving that general branch. he can't choose to go rogue entirely, he can't choose to volunteer with humanitarian organisations because he needs to stay within in the corrupt environment that is the police force. I do wonder at which point he gives up on the idealist wish to be able to change the system from within without entirely dismantling it. I know at some point in later s1 he still has it. or maybe aligning himself with some of the mob becomes the way he thinks he can do it.

maybe after seeing what excessive anger does to the rogues? or to bruce that would be so nice honestly. having the realisation how much anger and rage eats away at someone and how destructive and unproductive it is. but unfortunately I see a few factors going against that 1) he would always find a way to convince himself his brand of anger is justified. or that the people he's angry at are morally right to be angry at even if the rogues are angry at the same people as him. he is very capable of that hypocrisy xD 2) the kind of show that gotham is. it is at it's core at least partially a us-american cop show. the amount of violence and aggression that specifically the male characters show is unfortunately very normal. and I think the role Jim plays in the narrative is the male action hero. so he gets to be angry and aggressive because he's a man. he has his damsel(s) in distress to save, he has his holy mission that he must succeed in and any morally grey things he does are ultimately in pursuit of justice/the greater good so can in the end be justified as morally correct.

something like...

Person A, walks into a coffee shop.

In their head: get out, GET OUT, GET OUT, GET OUT

just getting increasingly louder and more annoying the longer they stay there.

Person A, throws hand in air: Alright! I just wanted a coffee! Jeez.

Leaves coffee shop to persistent whispering: leave, go faster, ect...

(at least as of season 3) Gotham is currently one of my favorite TV series: it has interesting characters, relationships, storylines, good acting, stunt work and a wonderful mix of dystopian elements with humor. Yet a lot of tumblr posts would have you believe that it's the worst thing ever written.

So in honor of its 11th anniversary (September 22th), here's why I don't think it's bad and why some critique points belong in the true-but-not-worse-than-in-most-other-shows category: 1. "The writing is bad" as if there weren't lots of quotes ranging from humorous to wise. You do realize that everything was written, it wasn't just weird plotlines people threw into a story that wrote itself. Every character you like for more than their acting was written to be like that, every plotline you were invested in had to be plannned in advance.

2. Bad continuity aka forgotten plot points I find annoying too cause come on, you can't just introduce a character who looks identical to another one without saying why, but on the whole (aka if we ignore that Isabella should've been adressed 😅), there are actually a lot of things with consequences for the furtue, more than in other stories (think characters holding grudges because of early events, or personal relationships mattering, butterfly effects (the Wayne murder having consequences in every direction from Bruce to Ivy and Tabitha).

3. Misogyny For a show inspired by New York in the 1970s, when things like domestic violence or abuse in a family were often widely ignored, the crimes against girls and women as well as reactions are depicted pretty well and yes, a part of that includes ignorance from male characters.

There are some things that really annoy me about the show's treatment (like a lot), but I still like the women themselves: they're good characters, whether they have major or minor roles (for example Nora Fries was so sweet during the like two episodes she was in or Liza I keep thinking about despite how little we know about her). To me Gotham even stands out in how good the female characters are compared to other shows. Think about how many fandoms need a female characters compilation or questions like "favorite female character" to even talk about them 🥲

Certain characters may be tied a bit too much to their femininity, but for some that's great realism-wise. Barbara Kean for example reinvents herself so many times, emerging with a new look, but essentially just another type of attractive a woman can be, which makes total sense consider how important being attractive has been for her.

4. Queerbaiting We have multiple queer characters. It's annoying that a certain character never explicitly realizes he's queer, and a shame that some of my favorite ships aren't canon, but they're only a part of numerous characters and, like real people, have problems getting together. Some of the Gotham account tweets from back then were fully queerbaiting, though.

5. Conclusion Ultimately I don't know what every single "Gotham would be an amazing show if it wasn't so bad" poster likes in entertainment, but I'm sure for a part of what they want to express is that it's a weird show, that they. Crazy things happen but it's a crazy world. Sometimes the reason for something happening is because it's iconic and it loves to do iconic things.

My questions for the heavy Gotham criticizers is this: what do you think makes Gotham "the worst show"? What makes it worse than so many bad shows (for example boring ones) when it's already better on multiple levels?