I'm too busy twitching over the overt and repeated slams against my pet character, as well as the 'everyone thinks he sucks' statements, to give much thought about any implications that has for other pet characters. Some of us love our sucky suck-ass characters.
I do believe that Jason's role and impact on the Batfamily could be his best asset, and the thing that makes him fundamentally different than Harvey, especially now, is that effect he has on the Batfamily as a whole. He's not just Bruce's personal hobgoblin, he's Dick and Tim's too. When they're forced to deal with him they're all stuck with this bizarre mishmash of fear, contempt, anger and an almost fraternal desire to pull him back into the fold. Tim and Damian in particular aren't really invested in Harvey (except in the abstract way all of Gotham is), but Jason...yeah. He's the Dark Robin, the fallen son. He's a family tragedy, the kind of dark thing that lurks in most clans. Harvey is something else, he belonged to the city, not just the Batfamily. When Harvey falters, when he commits wicked deeds, Gotham should tremble for its own fallen son. Harvey is bigger than Jason, but I'd argue Jason can (or should) cut deeper.
I certainly agree that it's bizarre to state that Harvey and the Joker can't get inside of Bruce's head, but considering neither of them show any particular interest in doing so lately, whereas Jason is all about personal vendettas and proving the Bat's methods wrong, it's not hard to see why MGK would feel that the character has the unique ability and, more importantly, the DRIVE, to do so. Harvey passively messes with Bruce's head by merely existing, the Joker can only be arsed to attack Batman in a meaningful way a quarter of the time, usually he's too busy acting like a wild animal or a cartoon character (not necessarily a bad thing, that makes those rare direct attacks that much more discombobulating). Jason, when (if ever?) written well, would always be an explicit attack on the family and on the bat-method. There's no murky 'Does Batman encourage and create his villains...?' with Jason, the answer is obvious, Jason Todd is a costumed villain because of Batman. Batman did this. He created this. He started the process that turned a child into a costumed villain. That's a father's anxiety. It's also a brother's anxiety, when one falls the possibility of others following the same path seems that much more likely. It's different than what Batman can (should) have with Harvey, and MUCH different than how he struggles mentally with the Joker.
ETA: This was a pre-coffee rant, so it's a little...all over the place. Despite what I said I actually don't think a character needs to act in a stated 'I'm messing with your heeeeaaaaad' way (which seems to be Hush's MO) to actually prove an effective mental and emotional hurdle for Batman. The Joker and Harvey cause Batman to question himself, his mission and so forth even when they're not dealing directly with him. I just think that Jason's more direct and personal approach is probably what motivated MGK to make that statement.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-30 11:50 am (UTC)I do believe that Jason's role and impact on the Batfamily could be his best asset, and the thing that makes him fundamentally different than Harvey, especially now, is that effect he has on the Batfamily as a whole. He's not just Bruce's personal hobgoblin, he's Dick and Tim's too. When they're forced to deal with him they're all stuck with this bizarre mishmash of fear, contempt, anger and an almost fraternal desire to pull him back into the fold. Tim and Damian in particular aren't really invested in Harvey (except in the abstract way all of Gotham is), but Jason...yeah. He's the Dark Robin, the fallen son. He's a family tragedy, the kind of dark thing that lurks in most clans. Harvey is something else, he belonged to the city, not just the Batfamily. When Harvey falters, when he commits wicked deeds, Gotham should tremble for its own fallen son. Harvey is bigger than Jason, but I'd argue Jason can (or should) cut deeper.
I certainly agree that it's bizarre to state that Harvey and the Joker can't get inside of Bruce's head, but considering neither of them show any particular interest in doing so lately, whereas Jason is all about personal vendettas and proving the Bat's methods wrong, it's not hard to see why MGK would feel that the character has the unique ability and, more importantly, the DRIVE, to do so. Harvey passively messes with Bruce's head by merely existing, the Joker can only be arsed to attack Batman in a meaningful way a quarter of the time, usually he's too busy acting like a wild animal or a cartoon character (not necessarily a bad thing, that makes those rare direct attacks that much more discombobulating). Jason, when (if ever?) written well, would always be an explicit attack on the family and on the bat-method. There's no murky 'Does Batman encourage and create his villains...?' with Jason, the answer is obvious, Jason Todd is a costumed villain because of Batman. Batman did this. He created this. He started the process that turned a child into a costumed villain. That's a father's anxiety. It's also a brother's anxiety, when one falls the possibility of others following the same path seems that much more likely. It's different than what Batman can (should) have with Harvey, and MUCH different than how he struggles mentally with the Joker.
ETA: This was a pre-coffee rant, so it's a little...all over the place. Despite what I said I actually don't think a character needs to act in a stated 'I'm messing with your heeeeaaaaad' way (which seems to be Hush's MO) to actually prove an effective mental and emotional hurdle for Batman. The Joker and Harvey cause Batman to question himself, his mission and so forth even when they're not dealing directly with him. I just think that Jason's more direct and personal approach is probably what motivated MGK to make that statement.
Also, typos. They're everywhere.