i’ve been thinking a lot about what is so unique and appealing about 80s robin jay’s moral standing that got completely lost in plot later on. and i think a huge part of it is that in a genre so focused on crime-fighting, his motivations and approach don’t focus on the category of crime at all. in fact, he doesn’t seem to believe in any moral dogma; and it’s not motivated by nihilism, but rather his open-heartedness and relational ethical outlook.
we first meet (post-crisis) jay when he is stealing. when confronted about his actions by bruce he’s confident that he didn’t do anything wrong – he’s not apologetic, he doesn’t seem to think that he has morally failed on any account. later on, when confronted by batman again, jay says that he’s no “crook.” at this point, the reader might assume that jay has no concept of wrong-doing, or that stealing is just not one of the deeds that he considers wrong-doing. yet, later on we see jay so intent on stopping ma gunn and her students, refusing to be implicit in their actions. there are, of course, lots of reasons for which we can assume he was against stealing in this specific instance (an authority figure being involved, the target, the motivations, the school itself being an abusive environment etc.), but what we gather is that jay has an extremely strong sense of justice and is committed to moral duty. that's all typical for characters in superhero comics, isn't it? however, what remains distinctive is that this moral duty is not dictated by any dogma – he trusts his moral instincts. this attitude – his distrust toward power structures, confidence in his moral compass, and situational approach, is something that is maintained throughout his robin run. it is also evident in how he evaluates other people – we never see him condemning his parents, for example, and that includes willis, who was a petty criminal. i think from there arises the potential for a rift between bruce and jay that could be, have jay lived, far more utilised in batman comics than it was within his short robin run.
after all, while bruce’s approach is often called a ‘philosophy of love and care,’ he doesn’t ascribe to the ethics of care [eoc] (as defined in modern scholarship btw) in the same way that jay does. ethics of care ‘deny that morality consists in obedience to a universal law’ and focus on the ideals of caring for other people and non-institutionalized justice. bruce, while obviously caring, is still bound by his belief in the legal system and deontological norms. he is benevolent, but he is also ultimately morally committed to the idea of a legal system and thus frames criminals as failing to meet these moral (legal-adjacent) standards (even when he recognizes it is a result of their circumstances). in other words, he might think that a criminal is a good person despite leading a life of crime. meanwhile, for jay there is no despite; jay doesn't think that engaging in crime says anything about a person's moral personality at all. morality, for him, is more of an emotional practice, grounded in empathy and the question of what he can do for people ‘here and now.’ he doesn’t ascribe to maxims nor utilitarian calculations. for jay, in morality, there’s no place for impartiality that bruce believes in; moral decisions are embedded within a net of interpersonal relationships and social structures that cannot be generalised like the law or even a “moral code” does it. it’s all about responsiveness.
to sum up, jay's moral compass is relative and passionate in a way that doesn't fit batman's philosophy. this is mostly because bruce wants to avoid the sort of arbitrariness that seems to guide eoc. also, both for vigilantism, and jay, eoc poses a challenge in the sense that it doesn't create a certain 'intellectualised' distance from both the victims and the perpetrators; there's no proximity in the judgment; it's emotional.
all of this is of course hardly relevant post-2004. there might be minimal space for accommodating some of it within the canon progression (for example, the fact that eoc typically emphasises the responsibility that comes with pre-existing familial relationships and allows for prioritizing them, as well as the flexibility regarding moral deliberations), but the utilitarian framework and the question of stopping the crime vs controlling the underworld is not something that can be easily reconciled with jay’s previous lack of interest in labeling crime.
203 notes
·
View notes
brb, i have to go and. make strangled noises at nothing real quick; it just hit me over the head how Wyll's use of the metaphor of dancing as a stand-in for romance and intimacy really just. accompanies him all throughout his story, and how perfect it is
I guess I should have expected a character like him, that's both deeply poetic in his speech and courtly in his upbringing, would come to idealize a chivalric romance a bit, and translate his feelings on/of love to an element of courting that's as ritualistic and processional as ballroom dancing, but sometimes just realizing the obvious can really knock you off your feet for a second
like. just like how there is almost a blueprint to a perfect storybook romance in both stories and -consequently- in his head (I think romance might even be one of the literary genres with the highest number of unwritten rules that need to be fulfilled for a work to count as a romance), there is also a fairly strict method to a court dance. There is a series of well-known and practiced steps that was laid out in advance, and one is to perform them in succession, and in sync with one's partner. If one of the parties doesn't know or doesn't want to follow the rules/steps, it gets... tangled, messy, and you both stumble. The dance and the relationship both fall apart. The happy ending of a tale is not reached without all the steps in-between being followed, and he so dearly wants his fairytale ending, his happy, fulfilled love, I just---
it's such a perfect metaphor, and what makes it even more perfect is that Wyll is ostensibly aware of it, and he chose it, purposefully, and i don't want to watch the Act 3 commitment scene because I've not yet done it myself and don't want to spoil it, but I would be so surprised if he a.) made no mention of storybook romances, or b.) didn't just straight up propose y'know
i'm (metaphorically) crying, if it were possible to play this game on six different characters simultaneously without getting bored or confused I fucking would
12 notes
·
View notes
Okay this partly stems from Alcina having separation anxiety when it comes to her daughters and a bunch of other things:
The daughters have lived in the castle all their life. Not strictly there, as they do go out during warmer months and they also travel to different parts of Romania and other European small towns with their mother when she travels.
It’s an opportunity for the daughters to go out and and accompany their mother. They are clingy, and often get very restless when she isn’t there for a prolonged amount of time. They can handle a day with no problems, nights are more difficult because they’re so used to having her around at night before bed to just talk and spend some quality time together because that's the only time where all of them are free and spend quiet time together. So! Not having mama there at night to talk to and just be around can make the daughters antsy.
But also, it isn't always that Alcina can make it there on time for bed. At times, she does spend 2-3 days away, and it makes both her and her daughters upset. So she made a deal with herself that if any business trip takes longer than 3-4 days, she takes her daughters with her (given the weather permits it because otherwise her babies will have to stay in the castle).
So it's been decided: any trip that takes longer does not only mean her daughters get to accompany her, but she makes it into a longer family trip. She would be busy for a few days, but she ensures to spend a few days on a family vacation so that her daughters can have fun and they can all spend some quality time together while discovering a new place.
There is a small issue: Alcina's daughters are used to places with small population. They aren't used to big crowd and being in large cities with millions of people makes them feel very anxious. Like, its fun and they want to do many things, but they get tired quickly and sheer amount of people makes them feel claustrophobic.
Luckily, Alcina never spends too long on those family vacations, two weeks is the maximum before the fun starts to wear off and it's just about the right time for the family to fly back home.
On that note: Alcina has a private jet so being around many people in a cramped place for several hours is not an issue for her daughters to even think about. (like it's never in their orbit)
19 notes
·
View notes
I've tried. I've tried for years. Prison absolution is not only not something I agree with, but its a harmful aim. Its fucking paradox of tolerance shit, ok? For people to be free, some people must not be free. I am on board with reform, I am OK with imprisonment being so fucking rare that prisons must be closed and house arrest is the only way to do it. But I simply cannot bring myself to agree that no one should be imprisoned. I firmly believe that is an immoral and dangerous view that only condemns victims to glorified imprisonment in their everyday lives. Not everyone can be fixed. Some people are just evil and will hurt people unless you stop them doing it. I've tried! I've tried to be a good prison abolitionist leftist! I've weighed the arguments! But the "solutions" are not applicable to the real world I live in.
28 notes
·
View notes