http://benicio127.insanejournal.com/ ([identity profile] benicio127.insanejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] scans_daily,
@ 2009-09-27 04:03 pm UTC
Entry tags:char: deathstroke/slade wilson, char: robin/nightwing/dick grayson, char: robin/red hood/jason todd, creator: judd winick, title: outsiders
A moment between these two that doesn't involve either getting their junk punched.

I don't know about you, but I would say this is a clear anti-hero moment for Jason. (And then along came ... well, you know.)



From Outsiders 44 & 45. Eight scans.










 Is that last panel pretty much a slasher's fantasy or what?



















As written by Winick, pre- BftC, (obviously, since now Jason eats babies or the souls of young cherubic children or something.)

(Read 121 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only) (Expand All)


[identity profile] lipsofpoison.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 02:14 am UTC (link)
Winick Jason. Accept no substitutes.

(Reply to this)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] aaron_bourque.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 02:51 am UTC (link)
. . .

Right. This is the man who made Jason Todd a villain. Sure, anti-villain, but still.

When the whole point of the Death In The Family storyline would have been, if Jay lived, that Jay got over his ruthlessness.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] scottyquick.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 03:10 am UTC (link)
Admittedly, I've never read Death In The Family, but what's the big deal that Winick didn't stay strictly to detail of a 15 year old storyline?

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] aaron_bourque.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 03:29 am UTC (link)
That's not the point. He didn't stay strictly to detail in a number of 15+ year old storylines, because generally only Starlin-written Jason Todd was a prick.

The point is I don't like this Jason Todd any more than I like Tony Daniels' Jason. I don't like that he became a villain.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 03:57 am UTC (link)
Some of us, who do not quite get this whole morally sanctimonious "no-kill" business as a simple black-or-white matter, think he became an anti-hero.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] mysteryfan.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 04:30 am UTC (link)
It almost sounds like you're saying killing versus letting someone live is a gray area, but that the label of the person carrying out the (personally decided sentence) is what's important: anti-hero or villain. When I'd have to think that the person being killed or not being killed doesn't really care. Except about the not being killed.

It's not 'morally sanctimonius' not to kill. It's a standard code of human conduct that's been around for a reason (human frailty and justice and morality) and for a really long time.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 04:42 am UTC (link)
What I find sanctimonious is the automatic grouping of anyone who kills for whatever reason as "bad guy". I would not put a soldier and psychopath in the same category, nor would I judge a person who killed to protect innocents and a person who killed innocents the same. There is a difference between killing a man in cold blood and putting down a rabid dog.

Reasons and context matter to me in judging the actual deed. That's where the line between villain and anti-hero lies. Do you kill for your own gain or for the perceived good of other people?

Also, as somebody pointed out, the notion that killing is the ultimate worst you can do to a person is purely subjective. I'm sure there are people who would prefer death to living crippled, catatonic or haunted.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] mysteryfan.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 05:24 am UTC (link)
But that's not your job. That's no one person's job to be judge, jury and executioner. There's a reason that's no one person's job (and it's partly to protect the person doing the job) and also, yes. I really don't think many people would argue that there's NOT a difference between killing a person in cold blood and putting down a rabid dog.

Reasons and context should matter. And should not be the burden of one single individual. There's a reason we have a distinction between the three branches of law. It's checks and balances.

And what? Subjective? I don't think it's so easy to find an actual, willing to go through with it significant group of people who'd prefer being dead to being not dead.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] mysteryfan.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 05:28 am UTC (link)
And, I'll add, even with checks and balances and far smarter people than Jason, mistakes are made. I'm not going into my thoughts on capital punishment, but Jason certainly shouldn't be put in charge.

It'd be a disservice to the system and a disservice to Jason. This guy needs that burden on him too?

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 06:08 am UTC (link)
It'd be a disservice to the system and a disservice to Jason. This guy needs that burden on him too?

I don't care about it being a disservice to a system that plain doesn't work. As for Jason, he takes the burden on himself willingly.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 



[identity profile] mysteryfan.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 05:48 am UTC (link)
And is Jason now the Angel of Death swooping down on crippled or catatonic or 'haunted' people (what does that even mean? And I'd bet those people classified as either of those three enlightened categories might have some thoughts on this subjective classification system) to save them from being crippled or catatonic or haunted?

I hope not. For their sake and for his.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 06:06 am UTC (link)
I should have said "traumatized" rather than haunted.

In real ife, I'd agree with you - it's not upto just one individual. But when you have a fantasy world where the criminals are repeat-offender sociopaths that an inept, corrupt judiciary and law enforcement system cannot contain nor punish, I for one long for somebody to take that decision into their own hands and do whatever it takes to stop innocent people from being killed.

Maybe its what each person expects out of fantasy. I for one, enjoy seeing real-life human weaknesses and certain limitations in comic book superheroes that they manage to overcome. But I don't enjoy seeing them perpetually helpless against a judiciary system who lets off psychos with a rap on the wrist and then off to the revolving door of Arkham. That's real life. I want to see the monsters bagged, tagged and taken out permanently, the way you can't in real life.

To have a bunch of people powered beyond all humankind sit around waffling about morality and the hopes for redemption that never, ever materializes while said criminals go out and victimize Joe and Jane Average - it gets old. So, sometimes, occasionally, seeing somebody say "fuck capes, I'm going to take care of this" is refreshing. This is why the morally gray anti-hero types such as Punisher, Wolverine and hell, even The Authority are popular.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] mysteryfan.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 06:59 am UTC (link)
If Jason was powered beyond all humankind I think he'd have a greater responsibility to not kill. How would it be good if Superman took it upon himself to kill? Should he?

Separate from not being more than human Jason struggles and ought to struggle with morality, if he still cares. He's just human. And has to live with his choices.

And I'm still not getting how 'crippled' which probably needs to be not used as a label, or 'traumatized' people are better off dead. I'm kind of thinking they might strongly protest.

But I don't enjoy seeing them perpetually helpless against a judiciary system who lets off psychos with a rap on the wrist and then off to the revolving door of Arkham. That's real life. I want to see the monsters bagged, tagged and taken out permanently, the way you can't in real life.

Well, but I think that's part of the comic narrative system. Repeat villains. If there was a new one every time we couldn't already know their issue and weapon of choice or connect with the fear we are supposed to have with them. Do Punisher, Wolverine or the Authority encounter repeat villains? (I've only read one of the three, and I noticed that they did.)

Also, where are you seeing the heroes as helpless against the judiciary system? I... lose faith in a 'hero' crosses the line and offs somebody because it's expedient versus the right thing to do.

And how is it waffling about morality when... I'm trying to think what you mean and all I can come up with is deciding to kill or not. That's not waffling. That's having morality. By making a really basic choice. I'm sorry it gets old, but it's still not a given to kill people in certain comic 'verses. It's harder not to kill them, but these would be 'verses populated by heroes who are okay with doing the harder thing.


(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread)  (Expand)


(no subject) - [identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com, 2009-09-28 08:02 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com, 2009-09-28 01:46 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com, 2009-09-28 05:41 pm UTC (Expand)


[identity profile] unknownscribler.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 07:51 am UTC (link)
Some people need killing, especially whn no other means of stopping them harming innocents works. It's really that simple.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] runespoor7.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 08:45 am UTC (link)
An ever simpler principle is people's right to a fair trial.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] unknownscribler.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 09:00 am UTC (link)
Let me reiterate: it's been proven nothing else will prevent that person from killing innocents. You send them to prison and they escape. You put them throuh rehab and they relapse. You put them on trial and they walk through intimidation of witnesses or corruption of the judicial process. Mundane authorities consistantly prove incapable of restraing this individual or protecting others from them.

If you've taken up the spandex, you've already tacitly admitted that the system is broken and you have taken upon yourself the moral and ethical responsibility of cleaning up the mess.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread)  (Expand)


(no subject) - [identity profile] runespoor7.insanejournal.com, 2009-09-28 09:07 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com, 2009-09-28 10:56 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [identity profile] runespoor7.insanejournal.com, 2009-09-28 11:02 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com, 2009-09-28 11:28 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [identity profile] runespoor7.insanejournal.com, 2009-09-28 11:39 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com, 2009-09-28 01:38 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com, 2009-09-28 05:32 pm UTC (Expand)


[identity profile] runespoor7.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 08:50 am UTC (link)
Admittedly I've only skimmed through DitF, but doesn't he die because he trusted his mother?

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] lipsofpoison.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 01:24 pm UTC (link)
She told him her sob story life of why she couldn't keep him. Bruce told him the Joker was around the relief workers like his mother so Jason thought she was in trouble and told Bruce to hurry back. Seeing him go off, he says basically "Sorry Bruce, but she's my mother" so he confronts her. He tried to help her by revealing he was Robin. She sold him out to the Joker.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] runespoor7.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 01:27 pm UTC (link)
... Where does ruthlessness come into play?

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 



[identity profile] lipsofpoison.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 01:33 pm UTC (link)
He's benched at the very beginning of it for being too violent with criminals (never mind that Batman puts people through a wall in front of him) so he wanders into his old neighbourhood and someone recognises him, giving him what she could save from where he used to live before it was sold as the landlord just dumped it outside. It's where he finds the pictures of his parents, his fathers address book with the 3 S names and discovers his mothers name blotted out on the birth certificate, with only an S visible, sending him off to the 3 S's in his Dad's address book after finding their addresses on the Barcomputer and then taking Bruce's credit card and running away to find his mother. It's also worth noting that there's never a test or any conclusive proof Sheila Haywood is his mother, as all Bruce goes by is they have the same eyes.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 



[identity profile] kagome654.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 09:14 am UTC (link)
When the whole point of the Death In The Family storyline would have been, if Jay lived, that Jay got over his ruthlessness.

But he didn't live. He died violently. That's the kind of thing that's likely to change a character's trajectory. So yeah, not seeing the problem, even if Winick Jason is STILL more extreme than I'd like to see.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 



[identity profile] shadowvalkyrie.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 09:33 am UTC (link)
Right. This is the man who made Jason Todd a villain. Sure, anti-villain, but still.

I'd also say anti-hero. And I still like this characterisation of Jason best. He's competent, fun, and tries to work with his family. As someone else said, it makes sense that Jason would be messed up after his death, and here it looks like he's on a good way towards reconciliation. There's a world of difference between this and random-shooting-into-crowds axe-crazy Jason we currently get.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 



[identity profile] lipsofpoison.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 12:20 pm UTC (link)
Yes and if Babs' hadn't ran into the Joker, she would still be able to walk. The trauma of something like that has had an effect on him and made him angry, hurt and while you can see the person he was before he was whacked and blown up, it's the difference of five years of hardening and becoming more hostile. The more alone Jay seems to be, the more hostile he is as you can see from his origin story so personally, I think Winick did a fantastic job in tying in a scarred, angry kid who clearly latched onto Bruce to an emotionally scarred adult who's obsessed with making sure no one else has to have the life he had. Of course it's each to their own, but I like Jason as an anti-villain and it was the first book I ever bought that convinced me to buy more so it's a matter of taste.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 



[identity profile] janegray.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 07:28 pm UTC (link)
Personally, I'd take a living anti-hero/anti-villain over a dead hero anytime.

The only problem is that writers like Tony Daniels want to turn the anti-hero/anti-villain into a 100% villain D:

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 



[identity profile] daggerpen.insanejournal.com
2009-09-28 03:32 am UTC (link)
MOTTO.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 


(Read 121 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only) (Expand All)