InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "SQUEE!"

claudie (flirting with modernism) (lipsofpoison) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-07-03 17:38:00

Entry tags:

char: robin/red hood/jason todd, char: robin/red robin/tim drake, creator: doug mahnke, creator: judd winick, creator: tony daniel

Batman #641 vs. Battle for the Cowl #2
Upon rereading Under the Hood, I noticed something that I loved from Jason at the time and something that I wish had stayed consistant on, to be honest.

Batman #641

Yes, Jason, I do think it's ridiculous when they do that.

Oh, speaking of...

BftC #2

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	jlbarnett 2009-07-03 11:13 pm UTC (link)
	Of course the writer might not consider them anvilicious. And if he's willing to cross one line why wouldn't he cross another? At what point do you decide it's OOC? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	runespoor7 2009-07-03 11:25 pm UTC (link)
	When a character who's made a goal of killing the dealers who sell drugs to kids ('kid' in that context including 'high-school students' as well) shoots a ten-year-old without so much as an explanation, he's clearly OOC. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	daggerpen 2009-07-04 01:19 am UTC (link)
	Beat me to it. Yeah- motto and all. (Reply to this) (Parent)

janegray
2009-07-04 09:24 am UTC (link)

And if he's willing to cross one line why wouldn't he cross another?

Because the Slippery Slope Fallacy is a fallacy.

At what point do you decide it's OOC?

I consider it OOC when the character does something that has been previously established to be go against their belief/ethics (or lack thereof)/attitude/MO/personality.

As pointed out, Jason always made it a point to protect kids, he considered harming a kid to be unforgivable. So his shooting a child is OOC.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

sistermagpie
2009-07-04 02:50 pm UTC (link)

Or even leaving aside slippery slope, any character--even a crazy one--has to have some recognizable behavior or else there's no character. Two-Face is an obvious example--he's bad, he's crazy, but his craziness follows a pattern. Only the Joker has no pattern, but that itself is a pattern. He's unable to be consistent for very long.

Which is not to say that a character like Jason can't cross a line he wouldn't have crossed before; the writer would just have to know exactly why he was doing it and what that meant for him. A lot of Jason's views on things, whether one agrees with them or not (and plenty of people love them) are fairly clear and important to him. He doesn't just say "fuck it", he has some reason why crossing the line is more in line with what he thinks. (Or else he needs some epiphany to change what he thinks. For instance, his whole experience dying etc. changed something fundamental in his belief system by destroying a kind of trust he had in Bruce.)

I don't think Jason could really be described, as he was elsewhere, as a thug who just wanted a chance to beat on people. He may accidentally become that, but it seems like that's always what he wanted not to be. In a way, it's what always made Jason more potentially dangerous than Damian who doesn't seem to really care.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -