I've been seeing quite a lot of people say Jason's characterization/personality/motives/background to just be a copy of characters like Helena Bertillini & Mia Dearden and I wonder how true it is or if people are just looking at him at surface value (cause idk much about these two to come up with a conclusion of my own)? This is a take I occasionally see surrounding Jason and I can't help but feel like this is a result of character never being given a proper place in the universe (like even with the Red Hood identity half the time DC doesn't even know what to do with him). Idk if it's just me being sensitive or defensive cause I like him but the narrative and some fans' sentiment sometimes gives off the vibe that he doesn't belong here and that he has no place/relationships that he can really call his own, like he's only being given hand-me-downs or borrowing from other characters. I guess it also has something to do with the mess that came with his robin run before. Due to external interference Jason did not find a solid footing, what with the inconsistent writing that was influenced more by bias rather than a natural narrative progression. But I'd like to think there are certain elements to his character that he can call his own and it's sad to think that even that could just be another borrowed idea. Although considering the amount of characters DC has released, an overlap is inevitable, so I'm really curious as to what extent this could be when it comes to Jason in comparison to Helena and Mia.

no, you are 100% right when it comes to it being only a surface-level comparison. and i think it's not even just a surface-level comparison, it's a terrible stretch that has its origins in fanon and modern retcons. 80s jay is not similar to mia at all, for example, and it's rewriting willis to be abusive that creates that parallel. it's also the fact that a lot of fanfic writers insist on jason being a victim of sa despite nothing in canon suggesting it outright. then with helena, the similarities start only when you consider his career as the red hood, but even then it's a completely different story.

of course, there are some alike themes and streaks in their storylines that make it plausible to claim that if you like one of these characters, you will enjoy the others. still, it's the differences that truly make them interesting.

jason's post-crisis intro and even the conflict that arises later on post-res are unique in many ways (despite the editorial doing their best to erase it.) i have talked about it plenty on here, so just to list a few; the way he was introduced and the place in the narrative it put him in (the crime alley meeting with bruce); his background (loving but neglectful due to circumstances working-class parents, homelessness etc), his grief, how he was first introduced into vigilantism, his relationship with the legacy of robin, how he sees (or doesn't see) civilian/vigilante identity, his internal conflicts... they are all so particular to his experiences. and they are often written badly, yeah, but the creative value of all these elements remains so clear in the context of wider comics.

there is def something to the fact that jay's character has always been a mess in terms of writing. + when combined with the amount of exposure that he gets nowadays, people get frustrated with him easily. but i think these comparisons do the same thing fanon does; they press all characters mentioned into stereotypes. it's probably just something that someone said once and people started repeating, that's it.