QUIPQUIPQUIP

May 28

Wait. No. Wait. Hold on, DC. I have a bone to pick with you.

touchofgrey37:

And it’s a legitimate one, too.

The reason Kyle and Wally were no longer the stars of their respective Green Lantern and Flash books was because DC said that they wanted to return those books to the most ‘iconic’ people to hold the name, namely, Hal and Barry. Which is also the reason that our Atom is Ray and not Ryan or Al, but that’s another story for another time.

No, DC. We don’t play like that.

If Hal is your iconic Green Lantern, and you’re making an iconic character gay, and the new gay character is a Green Lantern, then Hal is now gay.

You can’t say that Alan and Jay, who held the names first, or Kyle and Wally, who had more interesting stories/held the name longer, are not iconic, then flip your statement to have iconic mean what you want it to mean. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya,

This is not how the world works, DC. Get your crap together.

themightymeb asked: Are there any titles out of the DC reboot that you read/enjoy?

When the reboot started, I did my best to keep an open mind. I’ve only been reading DC titles for about a year, so I figured that heck, I was basically one of the new readers they were trying to reach out to. Setting aside my favoritism—-because yes, I will be the first to admit that I do have my own biases—-not many of the DCnU titles have made the six-issue crunch. When I’m reading something new, I give it at least the first six issues. Most comic writers that are on long-term books pitch for six-issue arcs—-the general size of a TPB. If the setup and draw isn’t there in the first arc, I probably will drop the book. It’s a matter of interest and money for me. Comics are my personal indulgence, and they’re not cheap. As a new reader, I don’t have the years and years of investment in the characters. If it’s good, I’ll continue reading. If it’s crap, I have no obligation to continue to buy it. I have a rating system that might explain my thought process a bit better.

The only titles that I’m buying regularly are Batman and Robin, Batwoman, and Batman, because they are fucking quality. I’m reading Birds of Prey, Aquaman, Demon Knights, Batwing, and Justice League Dark. Nightwing was dropped after four issues, and Batgirl after six, because of reasons. I’m slowly making my way out of Gotham. Slowly.

tealgeezus replied to your post: The only qualm I have with making Alan Scott (or any iconic character for that matter) is I have the suspicion that DC will use that ‘excuse’ to wipe out any pre-existing family/kids. (If DC wipes out Jade, Todd, and Damon, I will be displeased DC. DIS. PLEASED. Heavy on the dis.) And 2nd is they’ll most likely de-age them, which is slightly disappointing considering that not all gay people are young. I’d be nice to get a perspective of an older man coming out of the closet. (BTW, ILU Kitty)

There’s no guarantee it’s Alan Scott. Bleeding Cool is notorious for releasing incorrect information, not to mention their article on Alan Scott is unsourced and they say themselves that they could very well be wrong. So, take it with a grain of salt

I’m aware of that, yeah. I’ve been leery of the Bleeding Cool’s stuff since that rumored Robin book broke my heart into itty bitty pieces of misery and shattered dreams. Until we get hard evidence, I’m treating it as a what-if scenario.

dreamrabbit asked: Personally, I was hoping for Barry Allen or Hal Jordan. It would have been nice to know the character would be a big part of the DcnU and it would, to me, validate the decision to bring back the silver-agers. It would show they wanted to tell new types of stories with the classic characters, rather than just cherrypick the ones they personally liked the best. ~DreamR

The entire DCnU has felt like it’s been cherrypicked by a few, at the cost of creating a cohesive new universe. Nobody seems to be on the same page, and it shows—-even with the excellent writers. I have to give Marvel writers props for having a much better grasp of what is going on in other major books. But then again, that’s because they actually get together and discuss these things. The transition into the DCnU has just been a hot mess.

lovinglifeandallofitspeople asked: The only qualm I have with making Alan Scott (or any iconic character for that matter) is I have the suspicion that DC will use that 'excuse' to wipe out any pre-existing family/kids. (If DC wipes out Jade, Todd, and Damon, I will be displeased DC. DIS. PLEASED. Heavy on the dis.) And 2nd is they'll most likely de-age them, which is slightly disappointing considering that not all gay people are young. I'd be nice to get a perspective of an older man coming out of the closet. (BTW, ILU Kitty)

Especially since Alan (nervously) coming out to his gay son and very sweet and accepting daughter would be a wonderful, encouraging story to tell. Because coming out/being something other than cis heterosexual was infinitely harder in his day than it is now, so he’d have pushed it down and locked it up in the depths of his psyche, which could be a valid reason why he’s had trouble coming to terms with his son’s sexuality as well as his own. Damn, now I want to write this now.

Yes! I mean, really, I’m all for it. My problems are that it is a) not a flagship book in the least, b) will likely wipe out his family/kids, and c) will de-age him. The last two are my biggest problems with the DCnU. There is this pervasive running thread in their choices that I find really disturbing: that middle-aged and older people are uninteresting, that families are baggage, that grimdark is more marketable than happiness, and that an unattached straight cisgendered male character is the core of a winning plot formula. All of this is unsettling to me. Families, kids, hope, humor, and healthy committed relationships are boring, apparently. Personally, I see less diversity in the DCnU than in preboot continuity. Considerably more.

(Also, you should definitely write that!)

loxes:

QUIPQUIPQUIP: I’m getting very sick of the “anyone but ____” posts and comments that…

quipquipquip:

I’m getting very sick of the “anyone but ____” posts and comments that I’ve been seeing re: DC having an “iconic male character” come out.

That shouldn’t be a thing. It just shouldn’t. To me, it reads as people being protective of the heterosexuality of their favorites—-as if their sexuality hasanything to do with how strong, interesting, or relatable that a character is. Just because you personally can’t imagine it doesn’t mean that a writer couldn’t make it shine. It just baffles me that a character they like being written with a different sexuality is so abhorrant to some people that it’d lessen, if not negate, their enjoyment of them. Do they even realize how shallow and terrible that is?

What I really can’t get is that people saying ‘I can’t stand the fact that they’ll just wipe away x years of continuity to completely change this character, why can’t they just create a new one?’

Last time I checked someone being gay does not mean they have a completely different personality or history. Do all your actions revolve around your sexuality? Sure, some of their past events could now be seen from a different perspective, but isn’t that what this reboot (should be) all about?

I agree completely. I also feel the same way about “I’ll be mad if it’s anybody BUT ___” like, you only approve of YOUR character coming out, but anybody else is unacceptable. No matter who it is, it’s a step in the right direction, and I support it

I completely agree. The one thing I’ve heard about it being Alan Scott is just that I want him to keep his kids; and I’m not sure if DC will keep them anyway since they were pretty low key. Otherwise, that’s fine. I really don’t care? Why a problem?

You are all such good people with such good points and I love you all dearly.

Up until now, most of the gay characters have been created “to be” gay—-as in, gay characters that have been gay since their inception (or close to it). While I feel that any representation is better than none, I got really excited about the idea that an “iconic male” would be coming out. If the character does end up being Alan Scott, I have to say that I will be disappointed—-not that it’s him in particular (except if they do wipe out his kids, since his son WAS ALREADY gay), but because it has been hyped as being a more central character. He’s not in a main books, or the MAIN UNIVERSE. It feels like they’ve hyped it to keep it on par with the gay marriage happening over in Marvel Land, because the Big Two are sometimes two ten year old boys at show-and-tell yelling about how their new toy is SO MUCH COOLER and everyone should LOOK AT THEM AND BE THEIR FRIEND and ignore that loser over there.

The fact that it is the reboot means that no holds are barred. Dozens of characters have just ceased to exist, their entire arcs wiped off the slate in order to angle the iconic few into better lighting. So saying that writing a character as gay is anywhere near as dramatic a change as 80% of the DCnU’s characterization. I applaud that they’re doing this, but I wish that it felt less like a way of showing that they’re just as committed to showing diversity as any other major company!

I just laughed the ugliest laugh to myself.

I’m getting very sick of the “anyone but ____” posts and comments that I’ve been seeing re: DC having an “iconic male character” come out.

That shouldn’t be a thing. It just shouldn’t. To me, it reads as people being protective of the heterosexuality of their favorites—-as if their sexuality has anything to do with how strong, interesting, or relatable that a character is. Just because you personally can’t imagine it doesn’t mean that a writer couldn’t make it shine. It just baffles me that a character they like being written with a different sexuality is so abhorrant to some people that it’d lessen, if not negate, their enjoyment of them. Do they even realize how shallow and terrible that is?

[video]

May 27

yurbledoodleburg:

So I decided to actually READ Brotherhood of the Bat since it was still open before I went to bed, and I get to this page of Ra’s going through Bruce’s stuff and

um

what

okay which one of you fuckers bought Bruce this. It was Dick wasn’t.

I just spent like 25 minutes figuring out which species of duck suits which batfam member

mindgoggling:

(I blame Kitty)

Bruce is a black

Dick had to be a harlequin duck 

Babs is a redheaded duck

Jason is obviously a muscovy duck

Tim is a tufted duck

Cass is a lesser scaup

Steph is a bufflehead

Damian is a masked duck

and Alfred’s a ringnecked duck

this is why I’m not allowed to be near a Peterson’s guide after 10 pm

I love that this conversation started with me complaining about corkscrews, then duck genitals, then how Tim Drake is so clearly a duck, and then this happened. I’m not sure if we enable each other in good ways or bad ways.

Either way, duck fancast.

oh dear sweet baby jesus are those bats hugging

Why do I imagine Bruce just standing over them going NO. STOP THAT.

YOU’RE HERE FOR THE VENGEANCE AND THE ATMOSPHERE. YOU’RE SENDING A BAD EXAMPLE TO THE WARDS.

(via spacecadet--)

cacchieressa replied to your photo: I almost bought this today. Pretty sure this is…

Dick Grayson is pretty much the only mainstream male superhero who gets drawn in these kinds of posts

I know! Which is why I almost got it. I don’t particularly like the cover itself (I’m not fond of McDaniel’s art, to be honest), but I do like it when we get more of a variety of poses from mainstream male superheroes. I really just love how Dick challenges many of the stereotypes of male superheroes in general. The dynamics of how he presents himself—-and how he is rarely questioned by the male fanbase—-fascinate me. Ugh, Dick, stop being so great.

I almost bought this today.

Pretty sure this is the mating dance of the wild Robin in his natural habitat.

WIP theater

It’s been a while, so. A random sampling from my WIP folder. Awkward First Time!Tim/Kon, Take the Heat Out of Me!Jason + Gannon, Damian/Steph from Phosphenes, pre-NDND!Bruce and Damian fighting over Christmas, NDND!Tim/Kon, 9 Crimes!Jason and Talia, and 9 Crimes!Jay/Steph.

Read More

Raiding the fifty-cent and dollar bins at Wonder Northwest just made me realize exactly how specific my interests are. Robin!Jason! Robin!Jason and Disco!Dick! That Time Tim Apologized to a Bunch of Cats and Then Threw Them as Furry Projectiles!

(Incidentally, I’m really really pleased to finally own Batman #424 and #416.)

On the inside

swankivy:

I’m seeing this too often and I want it to stop.

I talk about asexuality and someone responds with “I know what that’s like, because sometimes my sex drive is low and I don’t want sex at all.  And you don’t see me calling it ‘asexual.’”

A demisexual person talks about the difference between normative sexuality and demisexuality, and someone responds with “I sometimes have sex with people I’m not attracted to.  And I didn’t want to have sex with my partner until I knew hir better.  You don’t see me calling it ‘demisexual.’”

A gray-asexual person talks about the difference between normative sexuality and graysexuality, and someone responds with “So what?  Sounds like you’re just really picky.  I don’t want to have sex with everything that moves either, and you don’t see me calling it ‘graysexual.’”

People, people.  The reason folks are identifying with these labels that seem so useless, irrelevant, and redundant to you is that they are not having your experience.  They are using these words because they relate to sexuality differently than those with normatively sexual relationships.  What are you getting out of it by walking into a room and saying “Excuse me, I don’t understand your experience or why you say it’s any different from mine, so I am going to assign you a Special Snowflake complex whenever I can’t process your reality”?

Enough with the anecdotes, folks.  We understand that you don’t get it.  We understand that you think we simply enjoy creating microcategories to describe ourselves, perhaps because (like many people who confuse behavior with orientation) you believe we think sexuality is icky and that we want to separate ourselves from being lumped in with icky people.  We understand that from the outside, asexuality looks like abstinence, demisexuality looks like slow-growing normative relationships, and graysexuality looks like being picky.  But that’s the point.  From the outside, that’s what it looks like.  That’s what it looks like if you judge us by what you see on the surface instead of listening to what we say.

From the inside, moving through a sexual world without relating to it normatively is significant and influential, especially during our formative years.  People who are gray and demi identify that way partly because they experience the world the way non-gray/non-demi asexuals do much or most of the time.  They have a partially or primarily ace experience in their lives, and they find it useful to involve themselves with other ace-spectrum people who get it.  I haven’t seen as much confusion here over non-gray and non-demi asexuals as long as they don’t have sex and make everything “confusing,” but for what it’s worth, asexuals who aren’t willing to have sex often get told they’re either gay in denial or not-at-all-special straight prudes.  We’re really not trying to look special by using these words.  We’re trying to communicate with you, and hoping you’ll understand our experience instead of mocking it.

But here’s the thing.  We’d love you to understand us, but we’re not asking for your permission.  On the inside, we find these divisions and labels useful while talking about our attractions or lack thereof.  On the inside, we have helpful and enjoyable conversations about our experiences once we have the words to describe them.  On the inside, we find fellowship and understanding, and we don’t need anyone’s blessing to do that.  We aren’t specifically “trying to exclude” anyone by acknowledging that there IS an inside.  Don’t take it as an offense that you are naturally excluded from a group that’s having a different experience from you.  Don’t look at us and say “I don’t relate to this at all, and I don’t like that they’re naming it and acting like it’s real.”  We’re not doing that to you.  We acknowledge that you exist.  We don’t try to tear you down and say your relationships don’t need words.

If this is not your experience, you are outside.  And that’s completely okay.  It’s not a fence that’s dividing us.  It’s not a suggestion that we’re on different levels of any kind, or that any group has a right to look down on the other.  It’s not some wall we’re putting up to tell you to stay out of our space—that isn’t what we’re asking.  But when you—you who identify as a majority-group sexuality—look at a minority group and tell them to stop annoying you by talking about themselves, you’re telling them that only your experience is real and important.  And you’re doing that with the power of the status quo behind you.

There’s nothing wrong with just telling us you don’t share our experience.  We aren’t asking you to.  Ally with us, or ignore us if we’re just too annoying to you, but don’t tell us to stop using words to talk about who we are, and don’t reduce our identity to a childish ploy to shame “sexual people.”  We don’t think of it like that at all, and the main places I’ve seen that attitude thrown around are cases of non-ace-spectrum people putting those words in our mouths.  (And I’m sure someone could find an ace person behaving poorly and quote hir while representing hir words as our prevailing attitude, but seriously.  No.)

If you’re quoting our definitions and telling the world how you just don’t get why our experience is in any way non-normative, you’re by definition not having our experience and it’s therefore not yours to describe.  If your experience isn’t our experience, don’t tell us how to talk about it.

Not from the outside. 

(via yurbledoodleburg)