If You See A Younger Sibling Dying In One Piece Rest Assured There’s An Older Sibling Running To Sacrifice

If DC lets Tim grow up trust Steph will be on the opposite side of the room for a couple months. When Jason came back Dick was constantly perching, climbing and hanging from things to avoid looking up at his baby brother all of a sudden.

Girlhood to me is watching all the twerps you knew as a tween grow massive only for you to be stuck at the same height.

BTW Steph was the tallest Robin and Jason was the smallest. Send tweet

THIS!! This theme persists throughout Tim's story. Where Bruce is unable to step away because of his trauma, guilt and lack of life outside Batman, Tim is unable to leave due to a sense of selflessness. In almost every step of the way he has a truly full civilian life waiting for him but he cannot leave Bruce and his family to drown in their grief alone. Because of what that means for them but also what it means for the city. He knows his role and has resigned to the fact that it is necessary regardless of his own needs and wants.

This is also what irks me about the "Rim is destined/likely to be a killer" characterization. While it is a really interesting concept, ignoring this incredibly selfless aspect of his motivation and replacing it with Batman's motivation is frankly wasted potential

the misinterpretation of a lonely place of dying by later retellings drives me nuts because ‘tim finds out who batman is’ is nearly not as much of a big deal as ‘tim doesnt want to be robin’ in the actual origin and it pretty much sums up whats wrong with modern tim drake. ALPOD is a tragic story of a twelve year old boy who had everything and willingly gave it up for a greater good. he is not like dick and jason who became robin to escape tragedy nor bruce who had everything and then lost it. robin was nothing but a curse he accepted to bear and he did so because of his selflessness. that selflessness is his driving rod, his smarts and physical talent are only the tools he uses to achieve his goals. he is not ‘the smart one’, he is a sacrificial lamb for a cause he became an unwilling spectator of. a twelve year old boy thought ‘people need saving, its that simple’ and put on the clothes a dying kid not much older than him wore because of nothing more than his selflessness and everyone he loved paid the price for it. he paid an even greater price for it.

I like to think naturally he’s far sighted but in an alien way super-vision way. So without his glasses he can scope out the city from the sky and do Superman work really well. But at a desk job? Noticing all those minuscule details like the chips in your mug, the graphite dust as you write, the colors and molecules humans can’t see must be exhausting. Like adhd issues but with super-vision.

So his glasses dull that down enough to let him focus on his writing work. Just makes things blurry enough to be at a human level.

Alternate universe where Clark Kent really does need his glasses and every time he goes Superman he’s risking it all

people who act like batman isn't "judge jury and executioner" because he doesn't kill people are like. genuinely so funny to me because. they're very obviously thinking of "executioner" as like. the stereotypical guy with axe who chops people heads off, and not, yknow, the literal definition of the idiom itself, which is about someone who has the ability to judge and then subsequently punish someone unilaterally. which is quite literally what batman does.

he has the ability to decide what is a "crime" to him, he is the one who decides whether people are guilty of those crimes, and he is the one who executes their punishment. the severity of the punishment doesn't matter - he is unaccountable to anyone else, and indeed is allowed to commit as many crimes as needed to reach his arbitrary ideal of "justice."

the ideal of batman is this: a man who is so fundamentally changed by an act of senseless violence that he takes it upon himself to fight back against the rot and corruption in the world. he does this not through political activism, not through ridding himself of his wealth in favor of a greater good, not through community outreach, but through an individualistic fantasy of being a hero.

and you'll say: charlie, but he does do that !!! he donates his money all the time, he funds social programs, hospitals, orphanages, gets people jobs -

and i will say this: so why don't things get better?

because here's the base of it. gotham, at its core, can't get better. no matter what bruce wayne does, there will always be more crime, more villains, more death, more people for batman to beat up in back alleys. because that's what sells.

reoffending rates don't matter in gotham, prison reform doesn't matter in gotham, what actually causes crime doesn't matter in gotham because that doesn't sell books.

and so here it is; dc has unintentionally created a world where batman can't win, but can't be wrong, and where thousands of nameless, faceless, only-created-to-die civilians must be pushed into the meat grinder that is gotham, to fuel bruce wayne's angst and vindicate his constant, tireless, noble fight against the forces of evil.

and then: a new robin, who is poor and who's parents are dead or gone because of this cycle; who is happy go-lucky and hated by editors and fans for being robin, for not being dick grayson, for being poor.

and this robin is written, unintentionally or not, to be angry at the ways in which batman's (the narrative's) idea of justice is detached from its victims. bruce seems perfectly fine to allow countless unnamed women to be at risk from garzonas in his home country, yet robin is the one who is portrayed as irrational and violent.

this robin is not detached from gotham in the way bruce wayne is: this robin is a product of gotham.

(and here's the thing. you can't punch aids. you can't fight a disease with colorful fights and nifty gadgets. and how would robin dying from aids add to batman's story; it would call into question the systemic changes that haven't been made in gotham. how does a child get aids, in batman's city?)

so robin dies, and then bruce (the narrative) spends the next couple of decades blaming it on him. it is jason's fault; he was reckless, he just ran in, he thought it was all a game. if only bruce had seen what was coming, if only he could have known that jason wasn't rich enough or smart enough or liked enough to be robin.

batman gets a little more violent, a little more self destructive. he hurts people more and almost (!!) kills a couple guys. this is bad because it's self destructive and "not who he is." it is not bad because batman should not be able to just beat people up when he's angry.

and then he gets a shiny new robin - who is all the things jason "wasn't": rich and smart and rational and he doesn't put who batman is into question. batman and robin are partners, and jason is a grave and a cautionary tale, and (crucially here) never right.

the joker kills thousands and it doesn't matter because they were written to be killed.

batman beats up thousands and it doesn't matter because they were written to be criminals.

and then jason comes back, and nothing has changed. there is a batman and a (shiny! rich!) robin and the joker kills thousands. (because it sells)

and jason is angry - he has been left unavenged - his death has meant nothing, just as willis' had, just as catherine's had, just as gloria's had, just as -

thousands. ten of thousands. hundreds of thousands. written to be killed.

but one of them gets to come back.

and he is angry - not only at the joker, but at bruce (the narrative) - because why is the joker still alive (when thousands-)

here is the thing - jason todd is right. not because the death penalty is good, not because criminals deserve to die, not because of everything he says -

but because of what he calls into question. why is the joker alive?

because he sells books.

and dc has written a masterful character, through no fault of their own, because jason knows what is wrong, and he knows who is at fault - batman. (the narrative)

so the argument that bruce can't kill because he's not judge jury and executioner; the argument that jason is a cop or that jason is insane or that jason is in the wrong here; they hold no weight.

batman can't kill the joker because the joker sells comic books.

and jason can't kill the joker because the joker sells comic books.

so he will beg and plead and grovel - he will betray everything that is himself, he will forsake his family and his city and kill himself - just so that bruce (the narrative) will let the joker die.

he was condemned to death by an audience, and after he came back he has spent his whole life looking us in the eyes and screaming, asking, pleading; why is the joker still alive?

why are thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands (the number doesn't matter, see, because they're just a number. not people. not real.) why are we expendable for his story? why did i have to die just for nothing to change?

and the answer is money. and the answer is the batman can never be wrong. and the answer is shitty writing. and the answer is -

nothing jason can ever change.

which is the worst of it all. he is a victim with no power, and no one else in the world can see it. he is raging and crying and screaming at his father and his writers and you - and it doesn't matter. jason doesn't matter. and he knows it.

Thoughts on Disney Pixar's Soul

Anyone like me who missed the movie soul cause it went straight to streaming during the pandemic, please take a moment to watch it because it's a master piece.

The art style is a beautiful mix of hyper realistic rendering and cartoon caricature and the intentionality of when it leans more into either style says a story of its own. The first things I noticed were the musical instruments rendered in way more detail than necessary, the pictures in his class of real people and not caricatures.

Then it was the perspective shots of 22 experiencing life, where the art was again, all hyper realism. The overwhelming nature of nyc to the beautiful moment of them feeling the spark of life. And in those moments despite the realism, it was not new york I saw. I blinked and I was transported to all the moments in my own life that paralleled that moment and I remembered the cold breeze on my skin, the smell of rain on cement, the context of my memories that made me feel that spark of life.

And when Joe laid out the trinkets they had gathered as proof of living that day and started playing the piano, as he went through his own memories, his proof of living his whole life, I sobbed. Once again, with every blink I saw my own life and every memory and emotion proof that I have lived. The score he played truly felt like it represented the feeling of being alive. Being alive through all the pain and joy and excitement and despair, a feeling so human.

What's insane about this is that I'm not from NYC, I don't take the subway to work, I have nothing to do with music or jazz. None of those moments or memories are directly relatable to my life. And yet I feel it represented my life.

The movie itself was a piece of art of course but watching it, the emotions it invoked in me felt like a separate multimodal artistic experience. One so deeply personal, I cannot express it to you in words.

Please go watch it for yourselves. If you watched it when you were younger and are now a full adult, please watch it again.

(I could go on about how perfect jazz is as a metaphor for life but I'm not the most qualified for that. If anyone is, please do talk about it)

A Captain’s Love

A fully colored digital comic of the Strawhats from One Piece.

The first page only contains a panel with the words "A Captain's Love.“

The second page shows Luffy and Nami holding hands and smiling at each other. Pictured underneath is a close-up of their interlinked hands and the gray silhouette of a person asking "So, are you guys dating?" Another panel shows Nami's reaction: an appalled expression on her face and "huh?" written in bold red letters.

The second page depicts Luffy sitting on Zoro's lap, happily eating meat while Zoro is drinking. Next to them is a gray silhouette again, asking: "isn't that weird?" At the bottom of the page is Zoro's reaction: an intimidating glare with "WHAT" spelled out in big red capital letters behind him.

The third page contains a drawing of Luffy and Usopp, sleeping on spread out blankets and pillows on the floor while cuddling. Again, the silhouette of a person is in the corner, remarking: "you know what people might think." Usopp's reaction in an extra panel is giving the person a deeply disapproving side-eye, asking "oh yeah...?"

The fourth page depicts Luffy tighly hugging Robin while lifting her in the air as both of them are grinning. The gray silhouette of a person is asking: "Are you really gonna let him act like that with your girlfriend?" Pictured underneath is Franky, deeply confused expression on his face, only responding with a bewildered "uhh...."

The last panel shows Luffy, grinning and holding his hat. The asexual and the aromantic flag are pictured behind him.

Specifically, Tim is for the kids who had parents with undiagnosed trauma and mental illnesses. The ones who had to gentle parent their own parents. The ones that have to remain stable even when they can't because they are needed.

Dick is for the eldest children that feel constant guilt for how their actions affect the rest of the family. In success, you set a standard too high for them and in failure you're taking away resources(time, emotional energy, money) that should have been theirs.

Somewhere in between, relating to them both, is the youngest that has to be happy all the time for the family to function. The one that gets made fun of when you need a joke. But also the one that knows everyone's triggers and is always paying attention to everyone's mood. The one whose work is never recognized because no one else has to be home as much as them, everyone else gets a break but them.

Dick is for the eldest sibling while Tim is for the parentified children and I think that's the most important difference between them

Skin Care

This is just a mini info dump from an Arab batfamily fan because I find Damian calling his siblings Akhi... adorable (for me as a native speaker watching a writer use Arab words) and, not painful, just... itchy, it URGES me to make a pptx with 300 slides and just? Talk about Arabic?

So... أخي, Akhi, Brother.

It's not incorrect. The word is used in the right place and delivers its intended meaning. Other Arab speakers might not find a problem with it. They'd feel odd like I did but will likely go "eh" and carry on. But I'm an Arabic enthusiast, so...

Like with every language with geographically widespread users, the Arabic tongue kind of- deviated from its roots. The language has naturally branched out into so many dialects I myself can't keep track of.

Arabs from different regions can understand each other. They use the same words but for different purposes and with different pronunciations.

The original root language that holds them all (Quranic Arabic) was simplified into an easier, standard version that is used for formal speeches and as a communication bridge (seeing that you can't, say, translate something to Arabic and say it's for all Arabs if you use a certain dialect. Because an Arabic dialect is an identity at this point, tell me somebody is Syrian, and I know them already)

Now, with the fun part.

See, no Arab calls any sibling of theirs Akhi, I myself would burst laughing if mine did.

Yakhoi يَخوي (nonstandard, everyday Arabic for o, brother) , maybe, if I'm calling a stranger from the streets or an offender I'm going to give a piece of my mind.

Or, hold your breaths, my brother is crying, and the lights are out and I NEED to use the tenderest, most loving, most adoring, most revering tone I could muster so he just knows he is loved and family. Y'know? This specific situation.

And other Arabs might just say, no, I use it when, I use it when, I don't use it, etc.

The point is, nobody will mention Akhi. Because it's a Standard Arabic word, a formal word, and a word used in translated texts and stories when a foreign character we don't consider part of us call their brother. It's weird, it's devoid of emotions, and it's like watching a robot trying to be emotional, but it's a translated text. That's what translated texts use, and it's fine.

It is fine, Standard Arabic has been used for stories so much that nobody questions its influence on a character's characterisation.

I'm not saying Standard Arabic shouldn't be used for story writing, quite the opposite, in fact. I'm just saying that if Arabic is used to represent an Arab, its usage should also consider an everyday Arab experience and manners.

Now to Damian.

Akhi is robotic. Damian's personality does allow him to fall under that category. If for his well refined manners and polite, formal speech.

But even the King wouldn't call his brother Akhi.

He'd call him by his name. For my community (and most, I'm sure) siblings are called by their names, and if we look up historic Quranic (Root) Arabic speakers, they, too, call their siblings by their name. Yes, even the Sultan.

If not by actual name, then either endearing or demeaning names.

Arabs LOVE endearing names, but they're dipped in a pool of honey I don't think Damian would like to dive in.

Talia, on the other hand, would most certainly call Damian Mama. Arab parents call their kids by their own titles. It's the ultimate expression of parental love of all times, in my opinion.

(Don't make Batman call him Papa, though. Pretty sure Damian would malfunction)

-

Well, I said all that, but watching writers include Arabic words in his vocabulary is still sweet. Tt is not even a word, but it's such an Arab thing it's my favourite.

If only I could make subtitles of everyday Arab talk and show you, their speech is heavy with, excuse my English, word softeners, it's like they're talking in a TV drama and not the real world.

Watching Damian adopting it would be interesting :D

Now the winner gets his prize! Come get your momma!