#fandom misconceptions | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

Tumblr was named as a finalist in Lead411’s New York City Hot 125 in Aug 2010.

#fandom misconceptions

the-far-bright-center · 7 months

Text

In discussions of TCW-Anakin vs. film-Anakin, I understand why some people see them as being incompatible or entirely different portrayals. But whatever problems I personally have with TCW are more to do with certain OOC dialogue lines that I don't agree with, or the overly-contrived situations that TCW tends to force him into just so an episode or scene can function as a 'meta-commentary' on his character or storyline. Believe me, I have issues with specific aspects of TCW's writing for Anakin, but the fact he's more outwardly 'suave' or 'dashing' than some people expected is not one of them. If anything, I see the 'Skyguy' persona as perfectly in keeping with Anakin as portrayed at the beginning of RotS, and I would argue that a great deal of the TCW characterisation is pulled directly from those Battle of Coruscant scenes. (TCW Anakin is also heavily inspired by Jake Lloyd's Little Ani in TPM, which, lest anyone forget, counts as FILM-Anakin.) The actual baseline 'persona' for both versions of the character isn't actually that different, and I'm tired of this idea that film-Anakin ISN’T supposed to be seen as ‘cool’ in-universe, just as much as I’m tired of the idea that TCW-Anakin ISN’T supposed to be viewed as a figure of pathos by the audience, either.

Imo, they’re both takes on the same character coming from different angles, set at different stages in his life, and portrayed through different mediums (animated series heavy on self-aware, darkly ironic humour in a more contemporary style intended to entertain and increase enjoyment of the Prequels-era and its characters vs. serious Greek tragedy with Shakespearean overtones made with old-Hollywood-style sensibilities as part of a mythic six-film saga). Just because TCW Ani doesn’t shed literal tears on-screen doesn’t mean he’s not emotional or emotionally vulnerable. As far as I remember, there's even a scene where Obi-Wan and Anakin discuss the fact that Anakin has trouble keeping his emotions hidden, which is the opposite of the 'macho' ideal the TCW version gets accused of being. And the amount of times we're constantly bashed over the head with dramatic irony about his fate as Vader in that series surely drives home the point that his trajectory is still a tragic one. (The way he cries out in agony in the Mortis arc, 'I will do such terrible things!' gets to me, every time.) Despite his powers and prowess, TCW Anakin is even shown as being physically vulnerable at times, as well. (See the Jedi Crash storyline which he spends mostly knocked-out unconscious, the nod to his mechanical arm as a liability in the Zillo Beast and Citadel arcs, and the scene of him futilely struggling like a wild beast before being captured with ropes in the Zyggerian arc, or the fact he gets captured and tortured by Dooku in 'Shadow Warrior'.) Fandom makes endless jokes about TCW Ani getting electrocuted every other episode, but then turns around and uses this to fuel the dismissive view of him as just some dumb himbo instead of understanding that this, too, is supposed to add to the character's pathos.

Likewise, fandom claims that film-Ani is 'uncool' and 'cries all the time', which is simply not true. Film-Anakin banters, jokes, laughs, makes daring jumps out of speeders, does bold piloting moves, is in fact an imposing duellist, and so on. Sure, his character is not supposed to be seen as aspirational (obviously!) and the most memorable and dramatic moments of the latter two Prequels films feature him in the midst of extremely intense emotions. But the oft-repeated view of him as 'uncool' completely ignores the fact that by the time that RotS starts, Anakin is also supposed to be a well-known and widely-admired charismatic general, aka the Hero With No Fear, who is viewed as almost singlehandedly saving the Republic. The audience may be privy to Anakin's inner turmoil, but in-story he is supposed to be seen as THE golden boy of the Jedi Order and the Republic. The RotS novelization frequently mentions that Anakin has 'dash', 'boldness', and a 'presence' 'like the Holo-Net hero that he is'. It literally says he's the best at what he does and he KNOWS it. He's not just supposed to be some sad, awkward idiot like the fandom thinks he is (rather, he's supposed to be shown as falling from a 'great height'). By the time of RotS, film Anakin has just as much swagger and self-confidence in his role as General Skywalker as he does in TCW. Just because that side of him is not the main focus of the film doesn't mean it's not supposed to be there.

#anakin skywalker #the clone wars #tcw #the prequels #revenge of the sith #rots #the hero with no fear #rots novelization #tcw as meta commentary #fandom misconceptions #tcw discourse #unpopular opinions #I guess?#this is just my opinion #no one has to agree #Prequels-Anakin is everything to me but i think sometimes he gets 'fanon-ised' in an oversimplifed way #and for all his differences TCW Anakin evokes Little Ani to me quite strongly (especially in the early seasons) and have fondness for him #my my this here Anakin guy #you can't take the Sky(guy) from me

92 notes · View notes

emma-is-swaggy-and-epic · 1 year

Text

Y'know something i find kinda interesting is that the danganronpa fandom kind of has a mandela effect thing going on where pretty much EVERYONE in the fandom spells kokichi's last name as "ouma" when in reality, his last name NEVER had a U in it!

If i'm being honest here, i kinda like the fan spelling more lol

#scheduled #danganronpa #danganronpa v3 #danganronpa killing harmony #kokichi ouma #kokichi oma #drv3 kokichi #danganronpa kokichi #mandela effect #the mandela effect #danganronpa fandom #fandom #fandom misconceptions #useless facts #interesting

6 notes · View notes

wuekka · 2 years

Text

There's so many writings from Square Enix about Clouds and Tifas childhood, why do people still think they were actually friends or that Cloud thought he was special/fought others just out of sense of superiority??

This bubble was omitted from english version of ffvii, but the misunderstanding continues even by people who supposedly have read all of this....this is one of my biggest annoyance because it's such a widespread fandom misconception. This fandom is wack.

#Final Fantasy VII #random ramble #fandom misconceptions #cloud and tifa #ffvii ultimania #salty salt

21 notes · View notes

notamushimaster · 1 year

Text

another thing to add to the Fandom Misconceptions list: Otabek Altin is Kazakh??? I just spent the better part of a decade thinking he was Ukrainian l

#my bullshit #yoi #yuri on ice #like. how does this keep happening #fandom misconceptions

5 notes · View notes

rakkuntoast · 1 month

Note

on the missa thing can i also say??? philza also calls HIMSELF weak and stupid at all times, and we see crows fighting that because they know he has a very biased POV (same as when he praises others by putting himself down), but somehow when it's about missa then non-hispanic crows take it at face value????

and also, sometimes when phil mentions it, to me, it feels more of a "fuck he doesnt have the shit needed to deal with how OP some of the mobs are here, he needs help" which is just. objectively true? not necessarily calling missa weak, just that, in the scheme of everything as the island works rn, if you dont have equipment of a specific level or type, you get popped by any mob around, and since missa isnt around much, he doesnt have those types of equipment

también, corrígeme si me equivoco, pero las últimas veces que phil ha mencionado a missa nisiquiera ha hablado de que sea debil o patético, sino suelen ser más apreciando lo que si hace, o simplemente estando feliz de que haya pasado tiempo con los huevitos y tal, so, es aun más irritante, cause phil dijo que missa es debil hace meses y los no-hipanos se quedaron con eso como gosspel

anon la vdd para mi la gente se enfoca tanto en el lado del ship que no les importa que más tiene Missa cubito para ofrecer porque si no es "Missa el mantenido" es "este man ni se parece a Missa"

tienes razón en lo que muchos solo se quedaron con el concepto de que Missa es un débil (que hasta cierto punto es verdad pero pues de por si ser bueno en el juego no es el foco de qsmp digo yo) porque es lo único que les transmite cuando lo ven por el pov de Phil, Y ESO porque aún si Phil lo alaga por ser de ayuda en cosas que Phil falla pero siempre se devuelve a "But hes a wet cat" y eso es lo único con lo que la gente se queda :/

y pues es peor cuando ni se dan el esfuerzo para poder verlo estar con los otros hispanos, porque te aseguro que ver un directo de el andando con roier cambia la perspectiva de como ven a Missa. porque si, el wn este es una masita, pan de dios, un amor de persona, algo tímido por lo que esta acostumbrado a estar solo pero también es un hijo de puta inteligente que puede girar las situaciones a su favor, no tiene miedo de meterse en peleas qué EL SABE que no puede ganar

mucha gente solo lo mete como "Phil's pathetic wet cat of a husband that can't do anything for himself" lo que es muy hiriente y también le tira al propio arco que está teniendo Missa cubito de tener su propia independencia. no juzgo que la gente no sepa esas cosas pero al mismo tiempo esa mala concepción de Missa hace que una y otra vez la gente lo reduzca a cosas que no son (ya tuve varios anons questionando lo de que "Missa is a jerk" skfkwj) y sin querer queriendo Phil le hecha leña a ese fuego

#ask tag #anon #long post #sorry this was longer than I expected but I had a lot to say #more when nonnie will understand Spanish skfkwkjfkw #qsmp fandom crit #qsmp missa #there's also people trying to not slot Missa into the misconceptions of the Fandom but they just make him unrecognizable 💀#like I'm sorry that pile of bones won't be your cool pvp guy #BUT we can take aspects of his actual videos. how about the fact that he has so many dumb trinkets he doesn't need #let him have a doraemon bad thingy. let him have his millions of butterfly knifes he has #he is a resourcefull guy. he doesn't need to be an expert in pvp to be cunning

44 notes · View notes

atla-recluse · 2 months

Text

Throne-Stealing Where?

It's always hilarious to me when I see/hear someone calling Azula anything along the lines of "power-hungry despot".

Hungry for power? More like hungry for family/relationship harmony and rules. If anything, she gives power away to others! She helped Zuko get back the throne and (conditional) fatherly appreciation that he so desired, with her only request being that he side with her and their nation (that's not asking for very much, from her POV, mind you)! She gave Mai a higher position than even her noble parents had and a chance to become a Fire Royal Consort through marriage to her long-time crush, Azula's brother, Prince Zuko! She (albeit after first forcefully taking her away from her preferred surroundings) gave Ty Lee another, more exciting way (based on how much fun we see Ty Lee having) to feel different/special and like "her own person"! She never used more force than was necessary when fighting her adversaries and only went "too far" when the situation seemed to call for it due to the risk to her person if she did nothing! (Which may have been a soul-destroying choice for everyone that was there [except Zuko]. Even Azula is implied to have felt like a monster for killing Aang, during that conversation they had on Ember Island!) A 14 year old felt forced to kill, people! That affects the one doing it, too! Why does next to no one ever ask what Aang was even planning on doing once in the avatar state while they were in the catacombs? Especially from the POV if one of his enemies? Play hopscotch and do super gymnastics? Doubt it!

Now, please correct me if I'm wrong but, wouldn't a despot be preoccupied with looking for ways to change the surrounding cultures that they come into contact with? Instead, after she leaves Ba Sing Se, for example, she keeps it exactly as she found it; with the only change being the new Earth Kingdom-originated ruler she places in charge. The people of the EK didn't have anything change for them for better or worse, as far as I can recall. Yes, we do see her trying to break through the wall of Ba Sing Se with that more advanced technology and she is imperialistic (which is something wrong in itself and which can be very brutal). But that's not automatically the same as being a dictator or snatching up bits of power from others in any way she can. And in the end she conquered it by instead using the true, least offensive (in multiple ways) means possible.

As for that period just before the final agni kai we see in show, where she was going to be crowned? She was granted that title by the current Fire Lord aka her father, after her back-on-the-clock brother defected (so willingly left).

u·surp

/yo͞oˈsərp/

verb

take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force. "Richard usurped the throne"

Based on that dictionary definition, how can she be usurping Zuko's position if, again, the FL himself is giving it to her and if Zuko gave it up? She's literally getting it "legally" (the FL is the law) and without using any force!

Now of course there's a rabbit hole argument that some may try and use by saying that because Ozai himself took his brother's throne without Iroh's consent (was it without his consent? Iroh seems to never be in a rush to be FL), that Azula getting the throne is therefore usurpation. Ummm, I hate to nip that point in the bud so soon but, Zuko is Ozai's son, not Iroh's. That means that (assuming the child of the by-birth king/queen is the only one that should gain the throne next if the king/queen is unable or unwilling) based on that logic, neither teenager should be allowed to sit on the throne.

Kinda hard to usurp a title from someone who "legally" shouldn't have it either, right? Oh Iroh, if only you'd just done your damn job.

All that being said, literally all this girl was doing is finding ways to handle her job and fulfill the tasks of it that she's been given at such an inappropriate age, while amassing the least amount of damage possible. And along the way she tried to extend a hand to her family and friends too, almost as a sort of "sorry for the inconveniences/thank you for your cooperation and loyalty". (She may have even learned some things about herself and others along the way—or could have, if she had been allowed just one more minute of screen time and the writing choice of change that the other Fire Nation kids got.)

Yet somehow many people come away from this show with the idea that she's trying to purposely take control of or harm as many people as possible in every way possible without any care at all for others' wants. I know at least two characters that that partly or fully applies to, and neither of them are Azula.

#Azula #Zuko #Iroh #Ozai #debunking fandom #common misconceptions #momentarily Tumblr-subtweeted two of these characters #Guess which ones #ATLA

34 notes · View notes

alexa-nowak · 1 month

Text

I noticed this tendency and I have to say this out loud: Astarion has more in common with Lucio than with Julian

Why we comparing kind, selfless and goody two shoes Julian with mean trickster boy Astarion?

I love them both but I have to say that I am confused with "same thing different font" ideas about these characters

They share flamboyance, drama and a little bit of trauma( in absolutely different senses) and design vibe a little bit, but that's all

And honestly,we need more of this kind of male characters, perfectly balanced mix of drama, trauma and flamboyance

#astarion #julian devorak #the arcana #i feel like this is a part of fandom misconception about Astarion #he is not only sweet traumatized babygirl #he is also very much a duchbag #unlike Julian #who is still the best boy in history of game romance for me

26 notes · View notes

otaku-babu-vibes · 9 months

Text

people seem to have a misconception that lolishocons find fictional children "sexy". There MAY be some that are sexually into these fictional characters, but not everyone does. It doesnt harm ANYONE if people do find lolisho characters to be sexy, since they dont even exist. Do you have to like it or be comfortable around these people? absolutely not. So long as their attractions stay in the fictional realm, it doesnt matter.

For those that arent attracted to these kinds of characters, they either just think they're cute or they project onto the characters (I kinda some what do that, I wish I was a short cute little shota)..

#fandom stuff #fandom misconception #l0lish0c0n #l0li #sh0ta #fandom wank #discorse #nothin happened for me to make this kind of post #its just something on my mind #oh to be a cute little shota

71 notes · View notes

the-far-bright-center · 7 months

Text

I'm so confused by comments I keep seeing from fellow Prequels/Clone Wars-era fans saying things like 'the love was there but it wasn't enough' with regards to Anakin. The implication being that because there were people in his life who loved him, he shouldn’t have had any reason to go and fall to the dark side. It always smacks of people blaming Anakin's fall on him not 'appreciating' his loved ones enough or something. Which is just...wtf?? Love was always enough. That's why it's explicitly shown that keeping Anakin from his mother is a huge part of the tragedy. His mother, who loved him unconditionally.

After TPM, being without the unconditional love of his mother was a huge gaping hole in his life. While his relationship with Obi-Wan eventually became closer, that was still not a true substitute for the familial love that Anakin needed and craved. AotC is pretty clear about that. And after AotC, Anakin of course had Padme and Ahsoka in his life, but the problem, in case fandom has forgotten, is that he lived in a context in which his love for others and theirs for him was not valued and was, in fact, forbidden. Anakin was not permitted to live openly as part of a family unit in the manner he needed, nor was he allowed to openly demonstrate his love for others in the way he wanted. Because he was always being told it was somehow at odds with his place in and service to the Jedi Order. This context (particularly the lack of a parental figure) was destablising for Anakin and gave Sidious an 'in' to groom him and exploit his fears. It is also telling that in the lead up to Anakin’s fall in RotS, Sidious was constantly trying to isolate Anakin FROM his loved ones. That certainly suggests that love, even forbidden as it was, still had a chance of holding Anakin in the Light, and that even Sidious knew it.

Lest anyone forget, Anakin's fall happens because of his Fear of Loss, and because of the context in which his struggle takes place. He is afraid of LOSING his loved ones. Of being unable to save them. And he feels unable to seek adequate help in part because he doesn’t want to reveal his secret forbidden marriage to Padme, but also because his dreams about his mother had been previously dismissed and he doesn’t believe that anyone in the Order will care enough to help. Yoda's 'advice' only solidifies this view. And when it comes to direct intervention from his loves ones, we will never truly know if Padme could have reached Anakin on Mustafar because Obi-Wan showed up at the worst possible moment. But even then, even AFTER Mustafar, Anakin didn't fully lose the love in his heart. His first words in the Vader suit are concern for Padme's safety and well-being. Sidious tried to snuff out that 'barest flicker of persistent light' that remained within Anakin ('it seems in your anger you killed her'), but even the years of despair and self-loathing that followed could not fully extinguish it.

By the time we get to RotJ, Luke's love is able to get through to Anakin in large part because the context in which Luke is operating during the Original Trilogy is ENTIRELY different to that of the Prequels-era characters. Luke's not hampered by the Old Order's rigid mentality and restrictive way of life, and has no reason to to view emotions of love and attachment as something he’s expected to avoid. Not to mention that a Sith lord hasn't been grooming him for years nor attempting to isolate Luke from his loved ones. And of course, there's no one else showing up to duel Anakin and getting in the way of Luke's love reaching his father. Luke was able to look at Palpatine with open eyes and see for himself what that evil man had done to his father. And he was able to understand that Anakin was a victim of Palpatine, and was able to empathise with his father, and, crucially, have compassion for him. Compassion, which Anakin himself had once defined as 'unconditional love'. So, it's really frustrating that anyone would dare to say that love was not ‘enough' to save Anakin, when love was ALWAYS enough, and when love literally did save him in the end.

#fandom misconceptions #jedi discourse #the chosen one and his hero son #this is what happens when SW fandom pretends that 'forbidden love' is not actually a real theme in the Prequels

6 notes · View notes

emma-is-swaggy-and-epic · 11 months

Text

Fuck it, here's some random misconceptions i had before i got into danganronpa (MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS)

Sakura was actually a man and all the claims that the game was transphobic were because of her

Monomi was the mother of the monokubs

Toko was actually a character in danganronpa 3 and that one comment genocide jill makes about aoi "asking her boobs to double on milk production" was directed towards kaede

Those sprites of junko with different hair styles were actually different characters (i mostly thought this because i remember seeing like, a video or a twitter thread or something ranking different dangan ships and when they got to junko x mukuro, the OP used that one sprite of junko with a ponytail and glasses to differenciate her from mukuro since they used a sprite of her dressed as junko)

That being said, for the longest time i also believed that junko had a long line of daughters and granddaughters that looked exactly like her, had the same name and everything (hell, i almost considered making an OC based on that concept that was basically a descendant of junko but she was born with a facial deformity that made her head a literal fucking bagel and her backstory was that she was bullied by her sisters for her deformity so she went under the name "kentucky beigeru" to separate herself from her family....also she was the ultimate equestrian.)

Danganronpa was actually a dating simulator (i didn't know what a visual novel was and i just thought ANY game in that sorta style was a dating simulator)

Usami and monomi were actually sisters, not the same character (though i kinda found that out more recently bc i was nosy and looked at the wiki page for monomi and spoiled myself on accident)

#danganronpa #danganronpa spoilers #danganronpa misconceptions #fandom misconceptions #misconceptions #random

1 note · View note

wuekka · 1 year

Text

....People in Twitter really don't play the game/know the story, yet keep insisting other people who are correcting fandom misconceptions are wrong.

Little Cloud in the room isn't even real, it's Clouds subconscious :'D

Then there's this line from the original that really hits home the fact they don't know each other. I'm just annoyed this misconception keeps circling in the fandom while those same people saying that keep calling others delusional. -_-

#Final Fantasy VII #random ramble #fandom misconceptions #cloud and tifa

2 notes · View notes

geneticcatalyst · 9 months

Text

as promised, an exploration of my one pet problem in fandom, or: misinterpretation of jby's first death (ft. zzs)

heres the thing. i occasionally see people reference what seems to be a misconception of the (english translation) text in qi ye. both the fact that its a translation and the metaphorical phrasing make it pretty clear to see why they got the wrong idea, but i firmly believe its still the wrong idea. i am by no means calling the people who got this mixed up dumb or bad, i am simply leaning over their shoulders going 'wait no bestie pls read that again pls read that one more time!!' because this is one of my favorite books and this thing is a key piece of one of my favorite things about it.

i said i was gonna pull screenshots for this post but i think it will be a little while before i get to another reread and i can't ctrl+f the google doc so im just gonna whip this out from memory. if anyone does have this particular passage on hand feel free to pop it in here. the rest of the context/explanations are just from my cursory research, im not chinese or a historian.

cards on the table. the only thing i love more than unhinged gay romances is unhinged platonic soul mates. its catnip to me. i go feral every goddamn time. and i havent stopped losing my mind about zhou zishu and jing beiyuan since that first qi ye scene. what do those guys have going on? not even sure they know but it's A Lot. ive got like 18 other unpublished drafts trying to work that out slash losing my fucking mind at the lengths they go to about each other. that relationship is at the center of both novels even if the spotlight isnt on it. so I admit that my readings are colored a bit by how much i like that they like each other!

which is why im shocked baffled and, ok, lightly salted, to see a few people make the claim that zishu (personally) tortured/killed beiyuan in his first life.

so what the text says is that after helian yi stopped trusting beiyuan (after su qingluan's accidental death), he was basically put to death. but even the emperor has to have a half decent reason to execute someone. the text describes these reasons- ten of them- as zhou zishu's masterpieces. it also refers to them as great shames to beiyuan's standing. what's happening is that helian yi has zishu frame beiyuan for treason or other betrayals against the emperor/the country. it isn't specific as to what, but it doesn't really matter, because its all fake and zishu is really good at his job. so yes, it is fair to say that zishu is the INSTRUMENT of beiyuan's death, but he didn't kill him, he just laid the groundwork.

the text goes on to another slightly confusing line where it says something to the effect of that when each of these accusations were read out in court, each line drew blood from jing beiyuan. that's a metaphor! it's just saying that his reputation was torn apart and ultimately his fate is sealed, despite the phrasing there are no literal injuries happening.

also, i may not have the timeline perfect on this part, but in zishu's introduction in the beginning of the novel, the narration tells us outright that while zishu is partially responsible for beiyuan's death, he was like. cool about it. in what seems to be the first and only time he ever steps out of line or goes against helian yi's command (!), after setting all this up but- if im remembering right- before the news actually breaks in court the next day, zishu warns beiyuan. now this admittedly doesnt do a whole lot because the only other possible option (cut and run) isn't a very good one, but it's the only thing zishu can do. he doesnt have to, but he does it anyway (!). of course beiyuan doesnt even consider doing this, he's stubborn and heartbroken, but he really seems to 1. appreciate the risk zishu took here to try to give him a chance and 2. not hold the whole set up against zishu or take that bit personally.

so what actually happened at the end of beiyuan's first life? he was sent the 3 chi of white silk. the text does explicitly say this once, but if you're not familiar with the practice it may not click. receiving the white silk from the emperor is what happens when you're too high ranking to execute like a commoner but you've fallen from grace and are being politely asked to hang yourself in order to clear your name. and of course beiyuan, stubborn and heartbroken, does. yes, it's a forced suicide, but it isn't a murder.

anyway, its in that secret conversation, where zishu secretly meets with beiyuan seemingly to try to convince him to save himself and beiyuan outright refuses, that beiyuan promises that if theres a next life (ha), they'll get drunk together. and of course against all odds, there is and they do.

the thing about the idea that some people might think that zishu killed beiyuan is that after that nothing between them makes sense. even if it was at helian yi's request, i just cant see that not permanently damaging the friendship, i don't think beiyuan could immediately pick back up being best friends in the seventh life with that memory in the way. why would zishu go out of his way to warn beiyuan one day if he was perfectly capable and fine with killing him the next? why would beiyuan not only be happy to meet zishu again in the seventh life but also go out of his way trying to save zishu's? none of their other interactions really make sense if you believe there was a murder done there. idk. it clouds the whole throughline of the story which is that they have a bond!

i think maybe people think it is in character due to the other ruthless murders, and they're not wholly wrong, but that's the kicker for me. zishu will murder all kinds of innocents no questions asked, but he's suddenly trying to give an out to his coworker and drinking buddy? hello? thats insane, and that's the point.

furthermore, if you think maybe it would make sense for helian yi to have beiyuan violently killed (since it keeps fucking happening later), i actually have to become helian yi's lawyer for a moment here and say that that doesnt make sense either. helian yi is sitting on a throne gained by shadowy means but he's the Good Guy Ruler and that reputation is important. hes not a cruel person and he may have become paranoid but he still has a shared history with beiyuan. plus, even the emperor has to abide by a certain amount of decorum when he wants to have people killed, especially when that person is also a high ranking member of court. beiyuan's status is basically second only to the royal bloodline, he's essentially the prev emperor's godson, as well as a previously close confidante of helian yi himself. the white silk was regarded as a privileged, dignified means of offing someone. helian yi is perfectly within social acceptability to do this to beiyuan with the pretext of beiyuan's disgrace. but it would be pushing the boundaries for the good and just emperor to suddenly have one of his top advisors and members of high nobility brutally killed like a common criminal. he could probably do it, but it would reflect on him and his reputation too. he could do it in secret, but would have to cover up the disappearance of a prominent court figure. it just makes sense to use the white silk as the neatest, most acceptable legal justice channel here. maintain emotional detachment, be polite, everybody's honor gets honored and such.

so that's the ted talk. theres even some beautiful fanart on here of white-haired first life beiyuan holding the white silk! he wasn't tortured or outright executed, and he chose to obey rather than escape or fight the false claims of treason even though his friend tried to give him the only out he could manage. to interpret things differently really skews the character motivations and plot for everyone- beiyuan, zishu, helian yi- in a way that warps the story out of believability, imho.

#gently and lovingly nailing my opinions to the fandom's front door <3 #minor qi ye spoilers obv #i think i spent upwards of 3 hours on this draft so believe me this is 10 percent salt and 90 percent love #i wouldnt call this a common misconception either but every time i do see it i have to go walk around the room #i love to think about first life and i love to think about murderbros so. inbox open #qi ye #and thank u to my enablers u know who you are!!#qy meta

55 notes · View notes

pseudo-hero · 6 months

Note

Conner Kent basically is a child from (medical) rape. Not calling him Clark's child is basically the mentally healthiest way to cope with this for everyone involved.

Note #1: I first want to apologize for taking this long to respond, though it's not the only time that's happened and probably won't be the last. I'm still surprised that this particular blog even got an "ask", to be honest! That being said:

WARNING: This post is about—among other things—sexual assault, properly defining/utilizing the terms and has a few violent descriptions within it. Some possibly unpopular and controversial opinions are below. Absolutely no harm or insult to any person or group was intended while I typed this out (including to the "asker"). I hope any possible readers will make it to the end before judging. I've typed this up for anybody, with no one in particular in mind, so 'you' therefore, refers to anyone as well as what's said in the "ask". This gets into and brings up a lot different subjects and ideas in regards to the Kal-Kon family relationship (both in-universe ones and meta ones), so apologies to the above anonymous user if it ever seems like I'm going off on a tangent; although I like to think all of this was relevant to the "ask" in some way.

As always, I'll try to be open-minded to differing opinions/information and I hope any possible errors made can be forgiven. This is also going to be really, REALLY L--O--N--G because I have a hard time giving short, straight-to-the-point responses for anything, I guess. Especially topics that have wide-reaching implications. I switch between character names a lot (and other quirks), may get a little repetitive (but I will try to make new points each time) and I also may at times be harsh on Clark here (but it's arguably DC Comics and their partners that are truly at fault, not him).

Note #2: I've always wanted to make a post about why Clark's treatment of Conner throughout the years has been questionable writing at best and detrimental to Clark's character at worst [as part of a not-yet-completed series on what's destroying Superman's character and legacy these days, in fact] but maybe this will end up being that post [or they'll just share many points/arguments in common].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but I'm not playing that game. Only rape is rape. You comparing (and perhaps twisting) Conner Kent's/Kon-El's creation to being that of a "child from (medical) rape"—which, mind you, I can't help but be reminded of "rape baby" (one of the names unfortunately often used on such victims-by-proxy for the wrong reasons) when I read it—is not only, to me, an insult to any version of the character's backstory and the hardship they've gone through, but to those who have actually experienced the trauma of rape or other forms of sexual assault (or being conceived from any such act).

While I understand why some interpret Kon's creation that way/where the belief comes from, I feel that's only one possible interpretation and one that unfortunately—on top of promoting offensive and less-than-rational conclusions—might actually be missing the point about the real reason(s) Kon got and still gets treated the way he does.

First off, let's get down to how every version of Kon was created before getting into the details of the origin of one or another, and proving how none of them sprouted from rape: Kon is, put simply, a genetically engineered progeny; a form of "test tube baby" (not meant to be disparaging). He was made in an undoubtedly sterile (purposefully loaded word) lab from the ideas, research-based input and experimentation of dozens of scientists and geniuses, his human parent typically included. (Note how I didn't name a human parent? I'll get to that.) After many failed attempts, there was a success, first dubbed Experiment 13.

There was no warmth or genuine intimacy involved in E13's creation, just as is the case with 95% to 100% of sexual assaults (I'm trying not to assume how it went for all victims). However, there was also no physical contact, beyond perhaps the extraction/finding and adding together of DNA-type substances. (You know, what with every version of Kon being treated solely as science experiments in their early days and all.) Without physical contact, specifically/particularly/especially of the sexual variety, already the case for Superman being "raped" begins to fall apart and we can get closer to what fandom/societal problem is really behind this idea being pushed and what truth is continually missed/hidden due to said problem acting as a cover.

Continuing from before: So, as we all know, almost every version of Kon-El/Conner Kent get's his DNA from a male kryptonian progenitor (always Kal-El/Clark Kent unless stated otherwise) together with the also-male human progenitor's, and rarely anywhere else. These days most versions of Conner seem to be the half-human genetic child of Lex Luthor and Superman, and it's been like that for a while. In the beginning however, he was solely a clone of Superman before it was later decided that he was actually an altered clone of some now-forgotten man named Paul Westfield and that he only mimicked Superman's powers. They later changed it up again ("retconned" it) to the Lex Luthor/Superman combination origin(s) for the 2000's version of him, but in doing so, made it clear in BIG, bright letters that Kon is not a "clone" anymore.

Unless—we're calling him a binary clone (what we all are).

That's right, a binary clone is one of many words for child. It's just a specific type of child/progeny. Here's another definition example, with the same description. I would hope no one needs to see the definition for child, too, but you never know. So, notice how so many of the definitions for child match up with what Kon is? What are the people that argue that Superboy is not Superman's—or that he's neither Clark's nor Lex's child—really trying to say or inadvertently saying, I wonder? That Kon is no one's child? That he isn't even a child (unless someone wants him)?? Good luck using that logic with real life "test tube children" (in-vitro children, if we want to be clinical), foster children and adoptees. Bet they'll really appreciate the insensitivity.

As for his age? Why does that matter? At his oldest, he's an upper teen, so still an impressionable minor. And who ever said you needed to pop up in someone's life as a perfect, little chubby cherub to be their child? Who said your parents needed to accept you/get the chance to raise you, for you to be directly descended from them? If a parent dies before a child is born (and stays dead), is the child not their child anymore? Even if someone meets their kid—that may appear to others, to have been created when the parent was a teenager—when the youngling is already a teenager him/herself now, that's still their child, isn't it? Look at all the questions that we are forced to ask when certain fans try and come up with arbitrary definitions, explanations and excuses (or ignore preexisting ones) for what makes a child a child.

As far as I can see, Superman is not delusional nor prone to denialism and isn't known for letting his emotions (or what some believe his emotions are or should be) get the best of him. At least, he's not supposed to be. Some writers in the past have had different ideas on that. In my opinion, they often ruin things for a large amount of us though, seeing as engaging in poor, contradictory behavior will never automatically = a character being more complex. It's more likely that the character will just come across as very petty, selfish, obnoxious or callous, things Superman generally should not be; maybe even should never be.

All that is to say that the need to pretend Kon is anything but Clark's (and Lex's) child in-universe and based on real-life standards, has nothing to do with authentic science or logic and at times doesn't even involve an agreed on continuity. You (the "asker") may already realize this (since you mentioned mental health and coping in your "ask") but many others don't seem to yet. In fact, the exact science isn't what matters, considering how the situation is fictional and therefore mostly pseudoscience anyway.

And even if it wasn't fictional, consider that animal reproduction is technically considered sexual whether two organisms had sex/copulated or not because of the act of the male and female gametes (sex cells) coming together. Based on that, can or can't Kon be considered just another typical mammal (mammal-alien hybrid?) made through a form of sexual reproduction, even if he wasn't made from the combining of male cells and female cells (typically not used in his case) nor (most likely) any sexual cells at all? Does it even make a difference in regards to his parentage? In reality, it actually doesn't and that question is only a pedantic-semantics one. All such questions are.

What actually matters here is the basics. Cells/DNA from these two beings were melded together to make another being. No intercourse was needed or involved. A large amount of people would still consider that as a child being made, with or without the added story context. (Many mythologies have had similar events happen in them, fwiw.) So why shouldn't our honest, selfless and compassionate Superman view it that way? Where is the extensive evidence that this is solely about Clark and his family's feelings anyway, especially in the present day? I'm sure that may be the excuse some writers hide behind, but let's be real here.

Clark, in multiple continuities, has had no problem giving Kon a name (twice, if you count Conner Kent too), encouraging him to have a secret identity like Clark, so he also gets to live his life outside of being a hero, has occasionally been seen spending time with Kon by choice, mentoring him, fighting alongside him, sending Kon to the boy's grandparents for raising in the calm, warm town of Smallville (where Clark himself was raised), enrolling him in school in that same town, literally considering him family...but he won't dare go as far as to call him son??

Now, don't get me wrong. Do I believe Superman knew what was going on just before and during Superboy's artificial development? No. He never knows until after Superboy is already out in the world flying around. Does that make it non-consensual and somewhat or very violative to him? Of course. But besides these adjectives/descriptors and (if you want to count it) the springing of a child from the experiments, the situation actually—again, I say—has little in common with rape.

(POSSIBLY VERY TRIGGERING LANGUAGE FOUND BELOW. If you can, pay special attention to what words I put emphasis on.)

Rape can be and is many awful things. The severity of the act can range from little to no bodily injury but major emotional/psychological harm from awareness of the unwanted/forced sexual contact you were put through, to very extreme bodily and mental harm. It can cause tearing, often-heavy bleeding and infection in any targeted orifice (vagina, anus, mouth and/or throat) that can take months to heal from or that the person never fully recovers from. It can make it painful to move and do certain positions with the body. For specifically the female reproductive system, it can lead to damage that's so horrible that a woman can no longer reproduce and so is left infertile. Or she can be left with a pregnancy that's taken root in her own body that she of course was not planning—since it was forced into her—and one she often won't feel like she can handle birthing. There's also always a chance that she could die during the months before the labor begins, if not during the birth itself.

In the case of one form of medical rape (which again, I don't believe Clark was put through, unless you're talking about a different definition for it), it's rape because the victim gets impregnated by semen that they did not agree to have used on them. So it's rape by deception, if not also due to the disturbingly forceful nature that 'fertility treatment' often comes with.

Can someone tell me what about any of that, purposefully emphasized words and all, is the same as how Kon was created? Am I really supposed to believe that Superboy's surprise creation through indirect means, is equivalent to the above in any way for any person involved? In the early years of the character's creation, it was implied or outright stated that Superboy got his Superman DNA from scientists—I believe CADMUS—stealing Clark's presumed-dead body and taking a bit from it (Kon was originally supposed to replace Clark, but not destroy him). What did they get? Maybe a hair? A skin cell from one of his arms? I'm not sure.

However, this was in the early years and the most violative it ever got. (Actually, I don't recall that version of Superman being all that shaken up over the matter compared to how some seem to think every version has been regarding Kon's creation, even though that one probably had some of the biggest reasons to be; he even reached out to Superboy first, in fact. Only to be rejected by him.) It also wasn't, and is still, not rape. It's overall more comparable to someone stealing his/her ex's or one night stand's condom off their body or from the trash to cause a pregnancy. A horrendous deed—but not rape.

I'm stating all this because your claim is built on a false premise. One that likely comes from an over-reliance on and desire for extreme comparisons/equivalencies. One that appears to be a very common opinion in the fandom, but which is still misguided. It's imperative that we try not use the word rape (or related words) to seriously describe any other different action just because we disapprove of it. It's superbly harmful and frankly, disingenuous.

Are you calling the situation rape because you truly feel that this is what happened or because it's the worst word you could think of to try to make people feel even more horrified than they may already feel about the situation, and to shut down conversation on Clark's strange behavior toward and relationship with, Conner? Is it that you do realize that sexual assault is a severe issue and definitely no laughing matter, so you use mention of it so flippantly to emphasize your point, not realizing that this is only contributing to the problem?

I often wonder if a huge reason for this is because many nowadays are, thankfully, far more knowledgable of the importance of consent, but to the unfortunate extent that they separate it from the actual acts that make sexual assault, well, sexual assault. Again, lack of consent by itself is not what makes something rape. There has to at the least be forced penetration involved, too and arguably blatant sexual intention.

Likewise: Stealing someone's wallet or squeezing all the money out of their bank account without their knowing, is not "financial rape". Beating someone to a pulp and leaving them there injured is not "punching rape". Wiping someone's mind of memories is not, technically, "mind rape" (despite how popular that term is now). Leaving a baby or puppy on someone's doorstep and hoping/expecting that the owner of the home will sacrifice their time to raise them, is not "nurture rape" (or "nurture coercion" for that matter). You know why all the previous is true? Because, again, only rape is rape!

Languages are always changing, adapting, sometimes shrinking but also expanding. We often add definitions to words that may not have been implied before and use metaphors and other figurative speak to make points. However, words have those original definitions for a reason and especially in the case of crime and morality, it is not wise to dilute the meanings of words for your personal opinions/arguments/headcanons. That is not only hurtful but possibly dangerous.

If you feel that this or that version of Clark is right to be weirded out by Conner for being created 'unnaturally' (based on average, modern human POV), just say so. If you feel some version(s) of Clark is right to be disgusted by Conner for being made without his knowledge or ability to stop it (presumed dead or alive), just say so. If you feel modern versions of Clark are in the right to reject Kon solely because of who the human parent typically is, i.e. Lex Luthor (since we all know that connection and Lex's intentions when creating Kon must somewhat play an enormous factor in some people's view of Kon's existence), just say so.

If you, for similar reasons, despise every version of Lex Luthor and believe he's an irredeemable monster (which I find understandable, even though I personally do like the character) and therefore that everything connected to him is tainted too, just say so. If you are so preoccupied with comparing Damian Wayne's (usual/modern/recent/current?) conception origin to Kon's own, to the point of only noticing possible similarities and wanting to claim the situations are exactly the same, despite the obvious differences (and despite how that makes Superman/Clark negatively appear but in comparison to Batman/Bruce this time who accepts his child, regardless of the actual sexual assault that took place to create him), just say so.

If you just have a certain set of characteristics in mind for Superman or think it should be anything goes if it entertains you, as the rule of thumb for Superman writing, then please, just say so. That way people with a different opinion than you will know what worldview they're really arguing with when you debate. You do not need to use a word (rape) with an already established definition that's important enough to be referenced in laws the world over, to emphasize your point. Your argument should be able to stand on its own without doing so.

It wouldn't surprise me if one of the biggest contributors to modern people's current view of Clark and Conner's relationship is due to largely popular, dramatic media like the animated series Young Justice. The show had a take on them that was based on certain older-but-still-modern comic interactions with the more modern look/personality for Kon and it was considered by many to be realistic/relatable in regards to Superman's viscerally perturbed reactions toward and avoidance of Kon. However, some others saw it for what it also was: An excuse to seep out as much angst as possible to make us feel for Kon, but at the expense of Superman's characterization.

Compare their relationship here to the one they had in the DC Animated Movie Universe film, Reign of the Supermen (a sequel to The Death of Superman movie from the same universe; both are based on the 90's Bronze Age comic(s) that I've mentioned already). It was Lex in that movie that was being unquestionably vile toward Kon. As you might expect! And it was Clark who, only after knowing Kon for a short period—probably 20 minutes at most in-movie and a few days in their world—showed the poor mentally-abused child compassion and immediately took him under his bright red cape of hope and, as often happens these days, got help from Kon's grandparents in raising Kon. As you'd definitely expect! Although it wasn't exactly explicitly said in the movie whether he considers Conner his son or not, their relationship there was still handled infinitely better from the jump than was the case with alternate versions of their relationship. The reactions from these two men from different media that are supposed to be the same character, are like night and day! It's almost like they're not the same character (hint, hint)!

There was no unnecessary drama or hypocrisy on Clark's part in ROTSM (remember they'd both be seen as dangerous in the eyes of regular earthlings). Beyond a moment of eyebrow raising, and some possible annoyance or hesitance, Clark seems to grow accustomed to Kon's existence very quickly (after Lois already had, without his realizing!) and starts acting sensibly about it afterward (while still coming across as a warm but stern and outraged father; again, as you'd expect!) which I think was a good thing and arguably just as realistic as the reverse, with the added benefit of not making Clark look douchey, un-empathetic and unreasonably judgmental. We should be way past acts of actual!superdickery in this day and age, imho. Considering the universe he exists in, Clark should be ready to take on whatever is thrown his way, even a hormonal teenage "clone" of himself, no matter if they have a human parent or not, and even if Clark doesn't get along with that parent. Seriously, more writers need to remember that. The DC world is insane and anything could happen; so the characters ought to be mindful of that at all times.

Which leads me to ask: Why should Clark be extremely upset almost every single time Kon pops up anyway? Why does he have to be extremely upset at all? He didn't get a choice to thumb up or thumb down Kon's creation but beyond that, what was forced on him? As I noted earlier, he didn't get forcefully impregnated or even deceived. No one made him let Kon into his life either and Kon is a good kid anyway who wants to be the best superhero he can be and who's typically no worse than cocky. (Though some versions of Superman surprisingly need to be convinced/reminded of Kon's innocence.) Less honest people will try and dance around the elephant in the room, which is that they wouldn't think what was done with Clark's DNA was a big deal if Kon hadn't come from it. "Well, duh!" you might say. Duh indeed, because without Kon's existence, literally no argument can reasonably be made that Kal was harmed in anyway. (Unlike with physical attacks, which are obvious. The harm done to him would then, at most, be emotional/psychological but only if Clark acknowledges on some level what/who Conner is (his son!) but struggles to accept him/rejects him despite/because of it. Superman (and the fans that do the directly-above), should focus their ire on the true wrong-doers, not a victim. I mean really, Conner has only done wrong to Clark and his family/friends once, while brainwashed by somebody else!! (It was Lex Luthor, of course.)

This means that they know Kon is his own person with endless potential, who is vulnerable and always at risk of manipulation, who deserves sympathy regardless of how he was made and who just needs an outstretched hand from someone who cares and wants him to stay on the right path, despite where he came from. Which means they also know what it says about Superman for him to neglect Conner, but just accept it as "a blind spot" as opposed to calling it out as the horrible writing decision that it always is. Kon in the ROTSM movie is the biggest victim in that scenario and it's made clear there. In that movie, Superman didn't turn his back on or avoid Superboy at any point and dived right into a father-son relationship with him. Thank goodness.

I repeat: The parent in the movie that actively created him without the other parent's knowledge, treated him like fresh garbage, like a toy that doubled as a tool/weapon, like an object. The other parent on the other hand refused to do the same and instead did right by him and took him in. Kon's feelings and needs were acknowledged as they deserved to be. Clark was called dad by the boy and he more or less stood in his role that wasn't gonna change whether he wanted it to or not, nor whether he accepted it or not. A parent is a parent the moment they have a kid, even if they choose not to be there for them. Adoption is one way of becoming a parent that I admire (as long as no cruelty was committed for it to happen) and I'm happy for those happy to be adopted. However, mind you, Clark or The Kents raising Kon who is one of Clark's own bio kids, would be regular parenting/grand-parenting; not adoption or fostering.

He also did have a choice btw, when it came to that movie, as he always does and like everyone else has/would. He could have chosen to ignore/avoid Kon and left him to teach himself how to swim, but this is Superman we're talking about here and he, more than anyone, would ideally never behave that way to someone in need (least of all a child/his own child!). Even if other people in his place would unfortunately be unable to (which I understand and can sympathize with). Superboy did appear to be physically younger (if not emotionally) in ROTSM than he was in YJ, but my point still stands for both stories and related.

In fact, if memory serves right, (as briefly referenced earlier) the 90's version of Superman which the TDOSM and ROTSM movies are loosely based on somehow wasn't near as avoidant around or upset by the 90's Kon-El Superboy (Kon sure was annoyed by him though) as the character was in some later writers' stories, despite supposedly being of the same continuity and despite the fact that Superboy became a better person and hero as years passed. Which actually kinda adds to my point about how ridiculous this behavior/flaw from modern versions of Clark is. Funny. It also sort of reeks of higher-up interference to me... Almost like they needed an excuse to keep the two apart; very separated and in their own books with rarely any overlap, before eventually deciding to recurringly erase one of the characters from "canon" and/or their connection/closeness to the other more prominent character...

Which, finally, is what the reasoning for constantly excluding and distancing Kal-El from Kon-El really all comes down to. Seven things actually, which are all often/always connected: 1. Keeping tradition going which often causes 2. Plain old homophobia to win when it comes to writing decisions, but also usually leads to 3. Clois favoritism, both of which are due in part to 4. Fear of trying anything new and 5. Peeving off the fanbases within the fanbase, whose members all have their own version of Superman in mind (think about the YJ vs ROTSM example), which brings about 6. Laziness and simplicity for simplicity's sake and we can't forget 7. That probably more than anything else (and where the other seven stem from) there's the issue of THE FOCUS ON $$$ [profit, with as little effort and change put forward to gain it as possible, or in some cases too much effort used on the wrong thing(s)].

The need to always hold on, in some way, shape or form, to tradition is a tale as old as time and an obvious reason for Kon's constant alienation from Kal and the larger Superfamily.

I mean really, think about it. Although I focus a lot on how Conner is treated by DC and specifically Clark, he's not the only child from his life that Clark's failed to raise or be there for to the best of his ability. It's just the most glaringly obvious with him.

Every reappears-in-"canon" minor (so not imaginary story character) that pops up at Clark's doorstep gets the short end of the stick, often multiple times at different points. In fact, it's happened so many times now that it's becoming a fandom "joke" and is even—for me at least—starting to become an expected outcome on Clark's part. And guess who it began with?

That's right; Kara Zor-El aka Supergirl: Cousin of Kal-El/Superman.

In the earlier Silver Age comics, Superman got up to some very weird or borderline abusive acts that he often involved Supergirl in. From refusing to take her in and keeping others from adopting this innocent teenage orphan, to forcing her to play pretend as his love-interest (likely as a not-so-veiled excuse to kiss her on the lips), to admitting he actually wanted her in that way, but couldn't, solely because of Krypton's cousin marriage laws?? Supergirl admittedly came across at times like she had an unnatural attachment of her own to her cousin but all the same, she was far younger—even underaged by many standards—traumatized and in need of guidance, yet that version of Superman didn't notice or care and even took advantage of this fact.

The tradition has been, for a while, to have Superman treat/neglect the children in his care so horribly that any chance of them having something of a father figure-child type relationship or mentor-student relationship is nullified. In one of the most recent issues of this current run of Action Comics (2016), Superman has once again come across a child, no, two children in fact, and actually took them both in. This isn't the first time he's done that (Lor-Zod/Chris Kent ring a bell?) but knowing how every other attempt at parenting by main universe Clark has ended, I'm hoping and praying that his sweet, impressionable, ill-raised, adopted twins named Otho-Ra and Osul-Ra (girl and boy) aren't destined for tragedy. Or outside involvement that cuts their childhood short. Or somehow still getting rejected in the end after the fact because it's not convenient enough for Superman/Clark and Status Quo. Considering how cluttered the current Action Comics's Super-Family is starting to seem...it wouldn't surprise me one bit if any of these options happened to them in due time.

Now, the homophobia. Do I really need to explain this one? The closest we've ever gotten to a gay/bi main-universe (not alternate) Superman...WASN'T EVEN SUPERMAN. Not really. It was his son who I bet you the editors at DC wanted people to confuse for the other when it came to the news article titles. Perhaps as a sort of "test" to see how much they could get away with doing with the real deal. I don't say this to shade Jon, only to tell is as it appears. Clearly a large amount of the fanbase failed the test. So although we do get to have a bi-Jon now (And possibly a basically-bi-Kon? Bicon?) whether or not some people hate it, the backlash over that Superman's coming out (and maybe even the anger over his secret identity being revealed) is proof enough for DC that Clark literally cannot come out, even if he wants to. Decades of subtext be damned.

Clois is and always will be the favored partner for Superman by writers. There's nothing wrong with that imho. It truly is the quintessential superhero comic romance. The issue is that any deviation from this (even if just for a short amount of time) is often met with outrage from a huge (or just loud) portion of the fanbase, causing writers to have to find a way to backtrack, cutting back on creativity. Now it often seems they're scared to try anything genuinely new and fresh with Superman. Who could blame them? They have previous examples that prove what will happen if they do.

It should also be noted again that keeping characters as separated/distant as possible (in this case, Superfamily characters) allows for DC to have each of those characters to have a series of their own so more comics can be made and sold!!

I understand we all have a version of Superman in our heads that's "the correct one" but that's exactly why arguments about what's "right" or what could "work" for the character often go nowhere. It leads to the quality of stories being affected and the companies putting in less effort into creating, knowing that simple and typical is what's wanted anyway. It's like: Why even bother?

So to reiterate one more time: The #1 concern will always be about making as big a buck as possible through as little a means as necessary. If editors and co believe lack of change is the way to achieve that, then that's what they'll do. Them continuing into the present day to stop just short of acknowledging what Kon actually is to the Superfamily likely has very little to do with the usual excuses, and a whole lot to do with the aforementioned, with everything else leading back to it.

29 notes · View notes

Last Seen Blogs

nxk

Nxk 🕉

captainkurosolaire

Captain Kuro Solaire

maythedreadwolftakeyou

When did I say that I would save you?

yourfavismorehumanthangabriel

Your fav is more human than Gabriel

sanndh

Looking for her Sanity. Will share lots of fanart.