Install Theme

Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.

It's Only the End if You Want it to Be

Posts tagged replies

Apr 7 '14
renaroo:


Nightwing: Old Friends, New EnemiesAction Comics (1938-2011) #614

"Gas pumped in… God! Sometimes I can’t believe what people will do." 
I… this was the best post I’ve made today. I’ll admit it fully.
Dick’s just so disgusted at that showerhead, too. Like tone it down, bro! Chill!

I have to admit, I can’t find this remotely funny because the first thing the gas shower made me think of was the Holocaust. Because that’s exactly what the Nazis did - when the “undesirables” (Jews, Roma, etc.) first arrived at the death camps, they were told to undress so that they could “shower”, but were actually locked into gas chambers to be killed. (You can read more about Nazi use of gas chambers here.)
If Romani!Dick had already been canon by this point, actually, I’d say the expression on his face is because he’s thinking about how many of his people died exactly that way. That’s obviously not what the writers were thinking when they wrote this scene. But it does bring up an interesting point - people often say that Dick’s ethnicity doesn’t add anything to the story besides cliched stereotypes about the Romani people. But I think this is an example of how Dick’s ethnicity could be used to add so much nuance to the story - if you read his character as Romani, the way you understand this scene changes completely.

renaroo:

Nightwing: Old Friends, New Enemies
Action Comics
(1938-2011) #614

"Gas pumped in… God! Sometimes I can’t believe what people will do."

I… this was the best post I’ve made today. I’ll admit it fully.

Dick’s just so disgusted at that showerhead, too. Like tone it down, bro! Chill!

I have to admit, I can’t find this remotely funny because the first thing the gas shower made me think of was the Holocaust. Because that’s exactly what the Nazis did - when the “undesirables” (Jews, Roma, etc.) first arrived at the death camps, they were told to undress so that they could “shower”, but were actually locked into gas chambers to be killed. (You can read more about Nazi use of gas chambers here.)

If Romani!Dick had already been canon by this point, actually, I’d say the expression on his face is because he’s thinking about how many of his people died exactly that way. That’s obviously not what the writers were thinking when they wrote this scene. But it does bring up an interesting point - people often say that Dick’s ethnicity doesn’t add anything to the story besides cliched stereotypes about the Romani people. But I think this is an example of how Dick’s ethnicity could be used to add so much nuance to the story - if you read his character as Romani, the way you understand this scene changes completely.

Apr 1 '14

legereamo asked:

Hi! I remember reading in an ask that you find codependency interesting in fiction. Do you have any favorite ships / examples? I'd love to try reading / watching something with a codependent ship (or platonic ship), and I seem to have similar taste to you in terms of books and shows. :)

minuiko:

Hope you don’t mind me publishing! Codependency tends to be unhealthy and destructive irl but I’m a total sucker for it in fiction, haha, especially since at its heart it’s all about mutual devotion (one-sided dependency tends to be more disturbing because there isn’t that same trust and reciprocation and understanding). I’m using the TvTropes definition here, btw. Examples would be… Sherlock and Watson (in literally any SH-derivative series), as well as sibling ships like the Elric brothers from FMA (Mustang and Hawkeye count as codependent too - one refuses to live without the other), the di Angelo siblings from PJO (more one-sided on Nico’s part, though), the Winchester brothers from SPN, Eren and Mikasa from SNK, Simon and River Tam from Firefly. There’s been some debate about Percabeth being codependent, and I think they absolutely are (Percy a little more so than Annabeth). They have no qualms about dying for each other, or killing for each other. If anything poses the slightest threat to Annabeth, Percy has zero remorse (and even takes pleasure) in eliminating that threat - if it means protecting her, he will let the rest of the world burn. When they’re apart all they can think about is getting back to one another. Annabeth is literally Percy’s tie to life when he bathes in the River Styx. Annabeth is very possessive and jealous when it comes to Percy, as well - she even says he’s the most important thing to her in the world. I don’t consider it a destructive relationship - they clearly respect and understand one another - but I definitely consider it codependent.

… Yo, being mutually dependent is 100% not the actual meaning of ‘codependency’, though.

And using a TV Tropes article (which is not even explicitly describing codependency) as your definition of an actual psychological condition is probably gonna lead to some mistakes, so let’s clear a few things up here.

First of all, despite what the name implies, ‘codependent’ relationships do not usually involve two people who are equally dependent on one another. Codependency is NOT “all about mutual devotion”. If it was about mutual devotion, that would be a much healthier thing.

In fact, ‘codependency’ usually describes a situation where only one person in a relationship is ‘codependent’, meaning that they are emotionally and psychologically dependent on another person beyond the norm in a healthy relationship, have lost their sense of themselves as an individual person, and only prioritize caring for another person and enabling that person’s dysfunction. ‘Codependency’ was originally coined to describe people in relationships with alcoholics and how they acted as enablers to the alcoholic in question. The definition has since been expanded to describe people in relationships with narcissists, addicts, or people with other dysfunctional conditions. Often the non-codependent person in a relationship encourages the codependent’s behavior by being controlling, manipulative, or abusive.

Here is the basic Wikipedia definition of ‘codependency’:

Codependency is defined as a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition (typically narcissism or drug addiction); and in broader terms, it refers to the dependence on the needs of, or control of, another.[1] It also often involves placing a lower priority on one’s own needs, while being excessively preoccupied with the needs of others.[2] Codependency can occur in any type of relationship, including family, work, friendship, and also romantic, peer or community relationships.[2] Codependency may also be characterized by denial, low self-esteem, excessive compliance, or control patterns.[2]Narcissists are considered to be natural magnets for the codependent.”

Notice how what they’re describing is completely one-sided and has nothing at all to do with “mutual devotion”?

Now, Wikipedia on its own is not a reliable source, so here is a definition from an article from Psychology Today:

"Codependent relationships are close relationships where much of the love and intimacy in the relationship is experienced in the context of one person’s distress and the other’s rescuing or enabling. The helper shows love primarily through the provision of assistance and the other feels loved primarily when they receive assistance. The intense shared experiences of the other’s struggles and disasters and the helper’s rescues deepen the emotional connection and feelings of intimacy.

In the codependent relationship, the helper’s emotional enmeshment leads them to keenly feel the other’s struggles and to feel guilt at the thought of limiting their help or terminating the relationship. This motivates them to reduce the other’s suffering (and their own) by continued helping and makes them quick to back off of any limits they set.

Helpers prone to codependent relationships often find intimacy in relationships where their primary role is that of rescuer, supporter, and confidante. These helpers are often dependent on the other’s poor functioning to satisfy emotional needs such as the need to feel needed, and the need to keep the other close due to fears of abandonment. Feeling competent (relative to the other) also boosts the low self-esteem of some helpers.

In the codependent relationship, the other’s dependence on the helper is also profound. The other is bound to the helper because the helper’s lengthy aid has impeded their maturity, life skills, or confidence, or enabled their addiction, or poor mental or physical health, making them dependent on the helper’s assistance. Their poor functioning brings them needed love, care, and concern from the helper, further reducing their motivation to change.”

Again, note how the relationship described is explicitly an imbalanced one. One person is obsessed with caring for and enabling the other, while the other person is always on the receiving end of their attention.

Now, note that I am just a lowly Psych student and by no means an expert in codependency, but I think I’ve at least helped paint a somewhat more accurate picture of it here.

Stop defining codependency as mutual dependence. That is a completely incorrect definition, and furthermore encourages the idea that it’s unhealthy to have a mutually supportive relationship with another person, which is completely untrue. Humans need emotional and psychological support from other people. We all do. No matter how ‘independent’ you are. Promoting the idea that it’s dysfunctional to get emotionally attached to someone or want to help them and protect them or even consider them the most important part of your life is wrong and it is doing nothing but creating confusion about what unhealthy relationships actually are.

Two people mutually depending on each other for love and emotional support is completely fine, as long as they still have a strong sense of themselves as individuals and are able to establish boundaries. That is not codependency. That’s just called ‘having a relationship’.

Please do not try to classify couples as ‘codependent’ without having a clearer understanding of what the condition actually is.

Mar 25 '14

Anonymous asked:

And what do you think about Rumple ? And Regina ? And Neal ? (because of your thing about loving the nice guy and they are grey characters for me, so i am curious, sorry ^^")

No problem! :-)

I like Regina SO much more this last season than I did in the previous two. In the last two seasons, I kept feeling like the writers wanted us to be sympathetic towards her but she KEPT doing awful things and blaming other people for her own mistakes, and I just wasn’t willing to give her a free pass.

But now, she seems to have genuinely changed, or is at least well on the way towards improving herself as a person, and I give her major credit for that. That still doesn’t excuse the things she’s done in the past, but the fact that she’s doing better now says a lot.

Regina, like Hook (actually, more than Hook probably) has a lot of annoying fans who act like she’s never been anything but an innocent victim and nobody has legitimate reasons to dislike her or distrust her. This is especially relevant with regards her relationship with Henry, with the way some fans seem to blame him for all the issues in their relationship despite the fact that Regina did some really problematic and arguably abusive things as a parent. And I love Regina and Henry’s relationship, don’t get me wrong, and she’s been a much better parent as of late, but the fact is that she did some really messed-up things and Henry had plenty of very valid reasons to distrust her.

Again, though, this is largely the fault of the fandom, not the character. Overall, I really like Regina and I hope she doesn’t fall back into her old ways and is able to build a fresh start for herself.

Rumple… mmmm. Rumple is another character I don’t like nearly as much as the majority of fandom seems to, but he’s okay. Like with Regina, I give him credit for owning his mistakes and trying to do better. I especially appreciate how hard he kept trying to fix his relationship with Neal, even when Neal (very justifiably! Like Henry, Neal has been the victim of some truly awful parenting) wasn’t having any of it. I’d like to see more of that relationship once Rumple gets back.

… I also have to confess, I find Rumple annoying as hell when he’s being the Dark One and doing that annoying giggle every five seconds. Quite possibly that’s the point, but much of the fandom seems to find him hot in Dark One mode, so… IDK.

… Also I have very mixed feelings on his relationship with Belle. Especially since she seems so very defined by her relationship with him, while he gets to have other plotlines and other relationships. That’s not necessarily his fault, but I find it troubling.

Neal, I really like. I didn’t like him much at first, but he’s a shining example (possibly more than any of these characters) of someone who’s really learned from his mistakes and improved. I hate that he abandoned Emma just because August told him to (?!??!?! … like, why? I’m still so confused about why either of them thought that was necessary. Why couldn’t Emma have fulfilled her destiny with Neal?!), but he clearly feels horrible about it and has tried to be there for Emma and Henry (I really love his relationship with Henry - considering Neal had no idea he even had a kid, he embraced fatherhood really quickly). And, like I said when I was talking about Rumple, I find the relationship between Rumple and Neal fascinating. It’s so damaged, but they were really trying to mend it when Rumple ‘died’, and I hope we see more progress.

… Neal is the opposite of many of these characters for me, in that much of the fandom seems to hate him and I really like him? I don’t even know why, but which characters connect with you can be kind of a subjective thing. For me, I like Neal and really hope the writers don’t get rid of him.

Mar 25 '14

Anonymous asked:

why is captain hook from ouat your least favorite character?

????????????

… He isn’t???

I just looked through my OUaT tag trying to figure out what would’ve given you that impression, and I’m honestly confused?? The worst I’ve ever said is that I don’t really like him.

Which, you know, is true, but I don’t really dislike him, either. I’m pretty neutral when it comes to Hook. I don’t love him like so many fans seem to, but it’s not like I’m seething every time he’s onscreen either? There are moments where I really like him, moments when I’m neutral, and occasional moments when he does something that bothers me, but overall I’d say I’m more positive than negative about his character.

As for why I don’t love him, well, the first thing you need to understand, dear Anon, is that I have absolutely no attraction to bad boys. So Hook’s whole “cynical, misunderstood rebel” shtick… well, it falls a little flat for me. Some people love that character type, I’m not one of them. I always go for the Nice Boy. Pretty much without exception.

The second thing isn’t something that I have against Hook himself, but rather his fandom: which is that Hook fans, particularly ones who ship him with Emma (which I don’t), have the most annoying tendency to overlook or excuse every problematic thing he’s ever done, usually while demonizing other characters like Neal in the same breath. That isn’t Hook’s fault, but it’s still something related to his character that annoys me.

And lastly, there’s this… because I don’t ship Hook with Emma (and the writing for their relationship often feels incredibly forced to me), he doesn’t really have a relationship with another character that I can connect to. The other characters, for the most part, have relationships with characters beyond their love interests - the Charmings as a family, Rumple’s relationship with Neal (and vice versa), Regina with Henry and Emma, etc. Hook doesn’t really have that. The best he has is his growing respect/cautious friendship with Charming and, unsurprisingly, those scenes are often when I find Hook the most interesting and fun to watch. But that relationship doesn’t get much focus.

And Hook’s a loner, I get that, but so are Gold and Regina, and you still see them forming relationships with other characters. I’d really like to see more of that with Hook, as well.

None of which is to say I dislike Hook, because I really don’t? At all? He’s not one of my favorites or anything, but most of the time my feelings on him range from neutral to mildly positive.

If I have a least favorite character on OUaT, it’s probably Peter Pan. I mean, he was great as a villain and all, but as a person? Eff that guy, seriously.

Mar 17 '14

kneelbeforejod:

luanna255:

I just want a modern AU crossover where John Faust, Victoria ‘Vicky’ Frankenstein, and Henry Jekyll are three brilliant young medical students who team up to do a series of experiments trying to prove the existence of the human soul for their doctoral dissertations and then their experiments spiral out of control and they’re left desperately trying to clean up the messes they’ve created.

Fuck, I want this more than breathing.

#I want to say we could achieve Elizabeth Lavenza’s survival #by having her turn out to be so much more intelligent and conniving than her appearance suggests #just playing the pretty sweetling because it’s safe #and yes she does love Victoria but she also loves the security of being part of Victoria’s family #and not even Victoria’s creation is allowed to jeopardise that #’Oh hell no you do not get to kill me when I finally have everything sorted’ #’I have worked too hard for this’ #’now sit your ass down and tell me what Vicky’s done now’ #as you can see I’ve obliterated the book in horrible fashion

Thanks so much for playing along with my nerdishness! ;-)

I like parts of this very much, other parts not so much. I definitely want to write Elizabeth as intelligent, but not necessarily conniving. I want to write her as someone whose kindness and compassion is very real, because I think that’s very essential to who she is, and also because I think a lot of people seem to see kindness as weakness when I don’t think that’s the case at all. And I think Elizabeth is someone who is very kind and compassionate, but that doesn’t mean she’s stupid or weak. I actually think she can be very outspoken when she disagrees with someone, and especially when she sees injustice being done (which is true of book!Elizabeth as well, who continues to speak out about her belief in Justine’s innocence even when literally everyone else is disagreeing with her).

I think, actually, we could do a variation on your idea but have Elizabeth’s compassion be part of what saves her. I like your idea of her simply being too determined to let herself be killed, and I definitely think that should be how she defends herself initially, but I also like the idea that she could be the first person who actually stopped and talked to the Creature, and listened to what he (or she, quite possibly, because if we’re doing a female Frankenstein it makes sense to do a female Creature as well) had to say, and showed the Creature compassion. Which, really, is the Creature’s driving motivation throughout Frankenstein - he just wants someone to treat him as human.

And I like that as a solution because it takes Elizabeth’s kindness and uses it as a strength, instead of a weakness. And I really don’t think you see that enough - kindness so often seems to be equated with weakness, and idealism with stupidity. But I’d love to write Elizabeth as someone who’s incredibly kind and idealistic and also incredibly intelligent and strong, and have her use all of those qualities to save herself in the end.

Mar 16 '14
writeroffates replied to your post:
Hmmm…. well Elizabeth could die, and Vicky become obsessed with bringing her back to life? Course then it becomes the tragic “lesbian love is never happy” story line that’s done way too often….
Yeah, see, even if Vicky successfully did bring her back to life (or “successfully”, since obviously that’s never actually gonna turn out well), I still don’t feel like that would really negate the problematic implications.
You could also not have Elizabeth actually die, but just be badly injured or put in a coma that she later wakes up from, which would still certainly be enough to make Vicky incredibly guilty and horrified, but it might be sugarcoating the story, which I don’t necessarily feel is a good thing. (And trust me, I’m the furthest thing from Ms. Grimdark you can get, but I do feel an essential part of these stories is that the consequences are really high, and people do die.)
Or Elizabeth could still die, but in a way which gives her more agency, like she purposely sacrifices herself trying to protect Vicky or something. (It still feels problematic, but less problematic if it happens that way, I think?)

IDK. I still haven’t found a solution that feels completely right to me yet.

Mar 13 '14

herestoyoumsholly:

Besides, doesn’t that make the Wizard a terrible person with allowing the gods to give little kids SHAZAM powers? Or letting the YA exist? Or Young X-Men? Actually most X-Men are minors.

Sorry I have so much aggression towards this, but it’s just an excuse to attack comics for not being ‘realistic’ enough.

Can’t you just accept a break from reality and let kids live?

Did I say I had a problem with comics not being realistic? I don’t think I did. I said it needed suspension of disbelief. I didn’t say suspension of disbelief was a bad thing. It’s very necessary for the genre, in fact.

Here’s the problem, though: If DC wants us to just suspend disbelief and pretend it’s in no way dangerous or unethical to let kids go out and fight crime, then they should never have started killing off Robins. The minute they killed off Jason, though, they opened that can of worms and there’s no re-sealing it, because the one pointing out what the real-world consequences of this could be isn’t me or any other bad guy you want to point a finger at, it’s DC’s own canon. They show Bruce’s sidekicks being killed or nearly killed over and over and over.

So if you want me to pretend this is in no way questionable, I have to pretend all of that canon never happened, and maybe you think I should do that but that is not what suspension of disbelief means. Suspension of disbelief means ignoring the implausibility for the sake of the story. If the story itself is showing me why this is implausible, if it shows me that over and over and over, then the story itself is preventing me from suspending disbelief.I also didn’t say Bruce was a terrible person. I said it’s hard to explain in a way that doesn’t make Bruce look irresponsible, and I stand by that. Again, that’s because of the canon track record, not anything I’ve done to be a killjoy. Every Robin they kill makes Bruce look more irresponsible, and that’s not my fault, it’s DC’s.

Mar 13 '14

Anonymous asked:

some people think bruce is a terrible person for taking young boys and putting them in danger just to use them like his personal soldiers and that he was adult, therefore he shouldn't give to the children's whimps....I'm curiuos what will be your answer to that?

I do think there’s some truth to that, actually. He’s taking children as young as eight in some continuities (Dick was eight when he became Robin in the original canon) and taking them out to fight some of the most dangerous and evil criminals in the world. That’s iffy at best and criminally irresponsible at worst. The fact that he’s now lost three of the five mainverse Robins speaks to the truth of that, I think. I may not like DC’s decision to kill off those characters, but I can’t really argue that it’s unrealistic. (Of course, realistically Bruce would probably have died a hundred times over, too.) Even with the ones who survived, there were close calls - Two-Face nearly beat Dick to death when Dick was thirteen, for example (as told in Robin #0 of Tim’s series and Robin: Year One).

So how do you explain Bruce taking a risk like that with a child’s life without making him look like an awful person? To me, the best explanation is either (1) that he saw they were going to do it anyway, with or without his approval, and realized that in that case the best thing he could do would be to train them and keep them under his wing to give them their best chance of survival, or (2) he saw something in them that made him believe that, if they weren’t given crimefighting as an outlet, they would go down a worse path. These two explanations can also be combined. (And, of course, these are only general explanations - there were more specific factors at play for each of the Robins/Batgirls, but I’m not gonna go through that here.)

At the end of the day, it is hard to justify, though, and suspension of disbelief is really necessary - especially to explain why Bruce kept taking on Robins after Jason died. (“Batman needs a Robin” is all very well, but is that really justification for endangering a child’s life? What about what the child needs?) There’s never gonna be an explanation which makes perfect sense, there are only explanations which make more sense (and make Bruce look less irresponsible) than others.

Mar 13 '14

theandysar asked:

luanna quiero que nunca olvides que el chupacabras es real.

Andy, no hablo español. Hable por favor en inglés.

Mar 11 '14

aeedee:

luanna255:

#ugh.  #he got the playboy Bruce down so very well  #too bad he was shit at the rest

I actually think he was a good Bruce, period. I mean, I think we can all agree that his Batman voice sounded effing stupid, but for all we know that may have been something Nolan told him to do. And generally, I really liked his Bruce. The problem to me is that after the first movie, they stopped really focusing on Bruce as a character, and he was consistently being outshown by villains (TDK) or supporting characers (TDKR). But to me, that’s the fault of the writing, not Mr. Bale. He’s a good actor, but he only had what he was given to play.

The Nolan movies have a lot of flaws, but to me casting Christian Bale as Bruce wasn’t one of them.

Interestingly, I’ve heard a number of comments claiming that his Bruce Wayne was a bit too mean-spirited. Almost too arrogant. But I think it depends on how you headcanon the character.

Personally, I would’ve preferred someone that could sell his smile as being a bit more genuine and well-intentioned, but there’s no doubt that Christian nailed the “fake but somehow very charming” aspect of his socialite persona. I think it comes down to how sharp and bratty you like your Bruce to be. Some fans thought Christian’s rendition was a bit too immature and obnoxious, while plenty others thought he hit the mark of what a “billionaire playboy” should be.

I’m a bit on the fence, really. I certainly don’t think he did a bad job, as Bruce Wayne or as Batman. Not my ideal choice, but he suited Nolan’s vision for the character, which by its own merit is very critical and grim. Nolan’s Batverse isn’t a happy place, so a more cheerful, endearing Bruce (even as an actor, playing the persona) would’ve stuck out quite a bit in that world. Bruce, after all, is a reflection of Gotham. As a character, he’s a reflection of the version of Gotham the creator builds for him.

Also, I agree with that last comment as well. The series did what so many other “mega action” trilogies do /cough/Matrix/. It got so ambitious and complex that the focus shifted too far away from the main character. We lost him in the chaos.

I don’t really mind Bruce being a bit of a sassy jerk when he’s in his Playboy Bruce persona (as opposed to the real Bruce that people like Alfred, Dick, and Selina get to see) because the Playboy Bruce persona is, by definition, not Bruce’s real personality. I also kind of see it as Bruce’s reflection of the shallow people he sees around him, and I bet he sees a lot of really arrogant and obnoxious socialites, so that’s what he mimics. Besides that, I do think there’s a side of Bruce which kind of enjoys getting to be a sassy jerk, whatever he may want the rest of us to believe. ;-)

When it comes to the real Bruce, I do think you could argue Nolan’s version had too many rough edges there too, and that frankly bothers me more. It works for the first movie, I think, because that was specifically a young Bruce, just starting out his Batman career and still figuring himself out in a lot of ways. The problem, to me, is that he never grows out of it, and that ties into the problem I was talking about before - the later two movies really stop focusing on Bruce. And additionally, instead of Bruce becoming more mature and heroic as the movies go on, things just get darker and darker and he just seems to get more and more depressed. Which is understandable, but it’s not really inspiring. I guess you could argue that he pulls himself out of it at the end of TDKR, but that’s just too rushed to feel like proper character development to me, and, more damningly, his solution is to stop being Batman entirely, which doesn’t fit Bruce to me.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again - for someone who hates Robin, Nolan actually did a really good job of showing why Batman needs a Robin. I saw it especially in TDKR - being Batman makes Bruce nothing but miserable, he’s desperate for a genuine connection with someone else and someone to give him hope for the future, he needs someone to help pull him out of the darkness. And Selina does that for him in a way, but she gives him a way out instead of being someone who can join his life as Batman and make it more tolerable for him. And that’s what I think Bruce really needed. He needed Robin.

(And no, I don’t mean John Blake. Don’t y’all even go there.)

(Source: palpattine)

Mar 11 '14
theteacupsun replied to your post:
Wouldn’t that depend on the quality of the time, though? The more stressful, the better, I think, because you really can get the measure of a person when you’re snowed in with them in a dinky airport for four days straight.
Well, this is true. I do think there are unusual situations where you could really get to know someone in a much shorter time than it would usually take. There are always exceptions, I’m not trying to pretend there are any absolute rules here.
Mar 11 '14
aeedee replied to your post:
Normally I would agree, but I’ve had that happen before. I literally talked to someone for about 11 hours straight and fell head over heels. I wouldn’t call it SOUL MATE love, but strong romantic emotion? Definitely.
Oh, I definitely think you can develop strong romantic emotion for someone in a very short time (I don’t, personally, but that’s just how I’m wired). I’m just not sure I’d call that ‘love’ - infatuation, maybe. It could easily come down to semantics, though - how exactly do you define when a romantic feeling becomes ‘love’?
I’m not someone who falls in love easily, though, and my definition of love has a lot to do with really knowing someone, so it’s not really surprising that my definition of love would be one that takes time to happen. That’s not necessarily everyone’s definition, though.
However, in the specific case I’m talking about, the person is convinced that this person is THE ONE and was made for them, etc., etc. And apparently they knew this in four days.

I can’t help but raise an eyebrow at that, although it’s absolutely not my place to judge.

Mar 6 '14
renaroo replied to your post:
He’s pretty consistent with Cass - but forces her to compare to *him* instead of the other kids. And sometimes Babs - which is where Cass feels the most insecure, trying to live up to Barbara. It’s like you said, I just wish he didn’t do it at all :(

Oh, that’s absolutely true, and a whole different kettle of fish - Bruce loves to compare the Batkids to himself, which is natural, but it can lead to each of them trying to remold themselves in his image.

There’s literally a scene (and I tried, but I can’t find it right now) where Dick literally says that he tried to become what he thought Bruce wanted - a younger version of himself.

I could write an entirely separate post about the Batkids trying to live up to Bruce’s image and feeling like they come up short.

With Cass feeling like she doesn’t measure up to Babs, I think a lot of that is tied into Cass’s insecurities about her own intelligence. With the physical fighting, I don’t feel like Cass has many insecurities - she knows she’s good. She knows she’s better than Barbara, better than almost any other fighter out there, pretty much. But the detective side is more of a struggle for her, because she was never taught that, and the fact that she has troubles with reading and language is something she’s very self-conscious about, I think. (At least at first - these insecurities are things she gets over as time goes on.)

Now, none of this is because Cass isn’t intelligent - she’s actually incredibly intelligent, and incredibly perceptive. She often notices details that other people overlook. But, I do think she has some insecurities in that area, and considering that Barbara’s greatest strength is her mind, I wonder if that doesn’t feed into Cass’s insecurities somewhat.

Mar 6 '14

Anonymous asked:

Bruce's comparison of Jason to Dick is usually commented upon by everybody, but nobody ever mentions the others. Bruce can do pretty well at parenting sometimes, but he screws up a lot and isn't very good at it in general. At least he means well...

sea-dilemma:

luanna255:

That’s very true. I honestly don’t think Bruce realizes how much those comments can hurt, but his kids are more insecure than he realizes. Not just Jason. All of them. (Bruce generally seems to have the highest opinion of Cass, so I don’t know if she suffers from that particular insecurity, but she has her own insecurities, too.) He does more damage than he realizes.

Most parents do.

That’s a pretty pessimistic viewpoint, but it’s probably true. I mean, most people - if they’re becoming parents for the right reasons, anyway - start out parenthood with the hope that they won’t do any damage to their kids, but I don’t know if that’s really possible. You’re bound to make mistakes somewhere along the line, because no one is perfect, and those mistakes can cause damage.

The best you can hope for, I think, is to cause the least amount of damage possible, and to learn from your mistakes, and to have the kind of relationship with your kid where they’d feel comfortable telling you when something is hurting them, so you know what needs to change.

And Bruce, like most of those parents, started out with the very best of intentions, but the problem is far too often, his kids won’t tell him when he’s hurt their feelings. Sometimes they won’t even acknowledge it to themselves, because they feel like they need to be ‘strong’. And that’s a problem.

Mar 6 '14

Anonymous asked:

Bruce's comparison of Jason to Dick is usually commented upon by everybody, but nobody ever mentions the others. Bruce can do pretty well at parenting sometimes, but he screws up a lot and isn't very good at it in general. At least he means well...

That’s very true. I honestly don’t think Bruce realizes how much those comments can hurt, but his kids are more insecure than he realizes. Not just Jason. All of them. (Bruce generally seems to have the highest opinion of Cass, so I don’t know if she suffers from that particular insecurity, but she has her own insecurities, too.) He does more damage than he realizes.