DM me for an invite to the active, 18+ Dead Dove Batfamily server!
hi, i'm luciferos. i'm 23, disabled, Deaf, queer, and a general menace. my pronouns are they/them. this is an 18+ batcest blog. i'm pro-fandom and pro-kink. I avidly support SALS, YKINMKATO, and DLDR. most of what i write is of the darkfic, dead dove variety. i'm a fan of the comics, mainly the pre-Flashpoint era of the Batfam. some of my favorite comics are: Red Robin (2009), Batman/Huntress: Cry For Blood, Birds of Prey (2010), Young Justice (1998), Huntress (1989), Sword of Azrael (2022), Grayson (2014), Robin War, and the Question (1986). i can be a comics purist, but i just tend to leave alone fandom content i dislike and i think everyone should have fun with their blorbos, whether they've read the comics or not.
my DMs are open for anyone who wants to chat, make friends, or just yell. my (mostly unused) main blog is @devilbonesofmetal, so that's where follows and likes come from. i don't do DNIs, your internet experience is your job to curate, so feel free to block me if you're uncomfortable with what i post. some important things to note are
my ask box is open for any headcanons, prompts, or questions you want to send my way! you can ask for comic recs or my opinions on canon, or whatever suits your fancy. however *please* understand there are usually at least 50 asks in my inbox and i don't answer them in order. if i haven't answered your ask yet, i will, i promise. it may take a while though. please don't resend it, we'll just both end up confused.
if you ever want to create a translation/podfic/fanart/etc or write something inspired by one of my fics or posts, you have complete permission to do so! just tag me bc i'd love to see it too!
a lot of content on this blog will be dark in nature. i try to tag and warn, but do treat this blog with a blanket Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings tag for your own safety if dark content may upset you.
as a comics purist, i tend not to like a lot of fanon tropes. if you send a prompt that uses a fanon-ish type of trope, i may take liberties with it to write it the way i prefer. that's never shade to fanon, it's just what makes me comfortable!
some of my favorite ships are: Tim/Jason, Tim/Dick, Tim/Damian, Dick/Bruce, Jason/Bruce, Ra's/Tim, Slade/Tim, Slade/Dick, Tim/Bruce, Jean-Paul/Tim, Cass/Tim, and Robin Pile.
and some of my favorite characters are: Tim Drake, Dick Grayson, Cass Cain, Helena Bertinelli, Luke Fox, Jean-Paul Valley, Bette Kane, Kara Zor-L, Zinda Blake, and Slade Wilson.
i write fanfiction, but i write anonymously on ao3 (for reasons explained here) so if you'd like to see all my stuff, here's a link to my tumblr masterlist and here's a link to my ao3 series, both of which contain all the fics i've written. aside from the typical ship and character tags, my vague tagging system on this blog is:
necrotic festerings - any ship/fandom metas i've written
necrotic answerings - answering any asks
necrotic writings - my fics
necrotic works in progress - rambling about fics i'm working on
divine and necrotic - tag for my partner @divine-dominion and i being gay on main
necrotic apcryopha - tag for my other partner @eebuckley and i also being gay on main
necrotic nuisance - my shitposting/low effort/non-serious tag
and, just for fun, some of the more interesting metas i've written:
why DC x DP crossovers are so popular
why the Batfamily fandom doesn't interact with canon & related thoughts
JayTim in the New-52 Deep Dive
"why aren't ships involving the women in the Batfam considered Batcest?"
tim is way more fucked up w sex than anyone thinks he is. In the middle of being plowed by bruce, bruce accidentally utters a reverent "jason" that shocks tim so deeply, and while he normally doesn't really mind the mistake after patrol or in the manor, he locks up and cums on the spot.
Replacing Batman With God: The Flaws In A Catholic Jason Todd
Methodology & Author Bias Disclaimer: For the purposes of this meta, the basis of Jason’s characterization is going to primarily be Post-Crisis/New Earth, as that is the most consistent form of his character, though most elements of this discussion can apply to most popular versions of him. I have read every single Post-Crisis appearance of Jason, but obviously, I will hold my own opinions and biases about him. Furthermore, I am a USAmerican raised Roman Catholic with a deep familial connection to the church, and currently consider myself folk Catholic. However, I am not a representation of every Catholic experience and am not pretending to be; this is again, my bias on my experience with American Catholic culture and Catholic scripture as a whole.
Before diving into the nuances of all of this, there is the elephant in the room to address, and the origin of most Catholic!Jason headcanons to begin with: in the Flashpoint universe, Jason is canonically a priest, as shown in Flashpoint: The World of Flashpoint. The very little information we are given about him is as follows, paraphrased from his own words: he was a bad kid who ran with the wrong crowd and stole to pay for a drug habit, eventually getting mixed into an apocalypse cult run by Brother Blood. This made him see the world as a terrible place, and he eventually died, but was given a second chance and was taken in by the Church, seemingly leading to him joining the Holy Order. There’s a lot to unpack with that, and a lot of missing information. We have the stereotypical worst interpretation of Jason’s childhood and who he would become as a result of it, a doomsday cult we have next to no information about, and somehow, an implied Jesus metaphor all in one page. Because comics are weird.
For the sake of simplicity, I won’t focus on the metatextual narrative and how Flashpoint did strange things with characters simply for the sake of subversion and transgression and why the idea of Jason becoming a priest was likely not a good faith exploration of his character but rather a shock value cameo. Instead, we’re going to take this plot at face value for what it is: Jason was in a vulnerable state of drug addiction that drove him to commit crime, which led to him being indoctrinated into a cult, dying, and getting taken in by the Church and eventually joining the Holy Order. It’s notable that Jason specifies he was taken in, not that he chose the Church on his own, which already removes a layer of agency. Furthermore, he enters religion already in a state of vulnerability and lacking agency, because he is a cult victim. As a member of a cult, Jason would’ve been subjected to cult tactics of mind control, intimidation, groupthink, and social isolation. (look into the BITE model for more information on how cults systematically maintain control over their members) And at some point, being in this cult led to his death.
While the Catholic Church is not a cult, it upholds its own hierarchical power structure that looks and feels similar. There is rigidity and specific behavioral expectations and requirements of belief. Seeking religion after leaving a cult is often done by victims as a way to seek out community, structure, and purpose that they lack without the cult defining their life. Jason going as far as becoming a priest means his life would be subjected even more to the rules and routines of the Church. Because of this, the most logical assumption to make is that Jason became a priest as a trauma response to coping with attempting to build his own life after cult brainwashing. He was taken in and conformed to the new community that was supporting him to survive, and assimilated to its power structures because of the comfort of familiarity. And because New Earth Jason at no point is indoctrinated in a cult, this circumstance cannot be replicated in the main timeline, nor used to make assumptions about New Earth Jason’s religious values. (It could be argued that the control Bruce exerts over the Robins, particularly Jason, replicates cult-like mentalities, but given this isn’t an intended canon reading and does not intentionally replicate the BITE model, we’ll breeze by it.) Especially when nothing in any other canon indicates any religious beliefs for Jason. For these reasons, I won’t be considering Flashpoint!Jason further in this analysis.
Which brings us to headcanoning of a main timeline Jason as Catholic. I can only speak to what I’ve observed in the fandom when it comes to the common points used in this headcanon. I am not using any specific person or post as an example, and instead painting broad strokes about fandom trends. Largely, the interest in making Jason Catholic comes from the aesthetics of Catholicism looking pretty on Jason, as any headcanon seeks to be pretty and esoteric. But more important to our discussion is the secondary interest: the idea of subverting Catholicism and, by extension, the pacifism of Catholicism/Christianity in a character like Jason. The issue in this attempted subversion is that it’s largely done by non-Catholics, with a lack of understanding of how Catholicism works both as a religion and as a culture in the USAmerican context. Which, ironically, ends up making most attempts of a Catholic!Jason read as incredibly Evangelical, ending up as almost an antithesis of Catholicism.
There is a supposed romantic idea to the thought of a Catholic!Jason being a “soldier of God” with a mission of salvation and divine violence. The issue is, the imagery evoked here may sound similar to the Catholic Crusades, but that is not reflective of modern-day Catholicism, which tends to renounce the Crusades. And even then, this isn’t really in alignment with the theology of the Crusades, which primarily sought to conquer, not to enact justice. The idea of a holy war being waged by soldiers of God is an incredibly Evangelical mindset, particularly by televangelists who profit by fearmongering off the idea that Christians are under attack and need to defend their religion. The ideas used in Catholic!Jason headcanon don’t sound similar to this televangelist narrative at first, but they share the same root: the idea of weaponizing religious faith against those who are acting outside of the doctrine of said faith. In this headcanon, where Jason is acting on his morals through a religious veneer, it is implied that the people he is taking down are sinners, and he is the soldier of God sent to punish them. It’s a fantasy of holy wars dressed in aesthetic language, replicating Evangelical persecution mindsets. It takes away Jason’s own moral and logical -and sometimes emotional- reasoning for targeting the people that he does to replace it with a “divine purpose”. Not only does this remove a layer of agency in Jason (which we’ll circle back to), but it paints the idea that he is right because of his religion and the reason these people are immoral is because of the religious doctrine he follows, not an ethical code he has created himself to abide by.
In addition to this “holy war” imagery is the imagery of “biblically accurate angels”. (Which, there is the general understanding of what this term means aesthetically, but theologically speaking, there is no such thing as a “biblically accurate angel”. All biblical descriptions of angels are humanoid. See: Genesis 18-19, Daniel 7, Isaiah 6. The only tradition with angels looking inhumane is Orthodoxy, not Catholicism. That is not what “be not afraid” meant. But I am digressing.) The idea of Jason specifically being the image of an angel, something inhumane and fearful, that fights. While Catholics do have a stronger presence of angelic veneration and belief than Protestants, Catholic angels are far more pacifistic, as they are venerated as guardians. The idea of unsettling angels with complex roles again, leans more Orthodox, not Catholic. The slight thing that this mindset does get right about Catholicism is the idea of the intermediary; whereas Protestants tend to view God as being the one to enact his will, Catholicism lends itself to the idea of things like angels being sent down to God’s bidding. But the idea of this being a violent crusade is intensely Evangelical. Evangelicalism loves the idea of Old Testament wrath, and the thought that they can call upon the Lord to smite their enemies. A wrathful, angry, violent God is the God that Evangelicals like to worship because again, they believe they are consistently under attack. And yes, it’s understandable that when we strip all the religious nuance from it, it’s a pretty picture to paint, the idea of Jason being something unsettling and inhumane, especially with how well this imagery melds with him “coming back wrong” or being “changed” by the Lazarus Pit, which are also common headcanons/beliefs about his character. But the issue lies in calling this Catholic imagery, and using it to desperately cling to the idea of a Catholic!Jason, when it doesn’t align with Catholicism.
Another thing Evangelicism enjoys is rapture theology, which ties into the “judgment day” imagery used in these headcanons. That Jason is bringing about divine judgment for the evil sinners of Gotham (or, for Bruce) when he returns, and that he has the ability to judge who is good and bad and enact punishment. It’s a small scale, psuedo-rapture for crime on Gotham. In Catholicism, the idea of good and bad is far less black and white. Beyond Catholics outright not believing in the rapture or judgment day, they also don’t believe in a strict “punishment/reward” system. The entire purpose of Purgatory in Catholicism -which isn’t present in other denominations- is that there is moral grey to actions and not everyone can be judged in this righteous way. Sins can be prayed away and atoned for, which directly clashes with the mindset being used in this headcanon, because it clashes with Jason’s ethics as a person. It's not so much that Jason doesn't believe in redemption, but rather that he judges actions as a reflection of a person and does not believe in forgiveness from the victim, which is something Catholicism holds at a high value, forgiveness and atonement as a rinse-repeat cycle with sinning. Jason is individualistic, and so is Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism makes its followers feel special, unique, and empowered to speak on behalf of God, something that isn’t present in the Holy Order of Catholicism, which requires God to be interpreted through the clergy. To make Jason’s faith individualistic and something he is in control of the nuances, in which he bends faith and scripture to his own personal beliefs puts him at odds with Catholicism. And to try to make this work and explain a theology he could have under his moral code, the romanticized violence of Evangelism is again evoked. Particularly the idea of scripture above the authority of the Church. If certain Bible quotes can be pulled out of context to support a holy war, then this is the correct path of God, as according to Protestants. Meanwhile, Catholicism has the clergy and papacy specifically to avoid any one person attempting to twist the words of the Bible to support whatever moral code a person has. (I am stressing that I am trying to remain neutral as possible as to which of these is “more correct” when engaging with Christianity. That is not the point of this essay. This is a neutral commentary on how Catholic theology does and doesn’t work. Form your own opinions on religion, don’t base them off a meta about a comic book character, I am begging you.)
So then, if we’ve covered the bases of why the most common elements of Catholic!Jason headcanons aren’t rooted in Catholicism, instead just a vaguely “Catholic-core” aesthetic that instead romanticizes Evangelicalism, then what does American Catholicism look like? And is it compatible with Jason’s ethics and morals? The answer? Shocking to no one, it’s complicated.
American Catholicism, as both a culture and a religion, broadly follows the following ideals:
Catholic Guilt: “Original Sin” is, most simply, the theological belief that all humans are born with the sin that Adam and Eve committed by eating the apple in the garden. It means that we are born sinners. And while Catholicism is not the only branch to believe in this concept, it is most prominent in Catholicism. (hence Catholics believing in things like the Immaculate Conception. The Mother of God cannot be born with sin, so she must be Immaculate from birth.) In a cultural way, this means Catholics are raised to believe we are always guilty of something. We will always be sinning, and we will always be apologizing to God for these sins. It’s a rinse and repeat cycle, where the weight of sin hangs over your head to force you to be a good person. And even then, you’re probably not being good enough. Sin, atone, and repeat the cycle. Hence the need for Penance/Confession. Most American Catholics tend to joke that they’re bad Catholics.
Catholic Judgment: If you’re born a sinner, then everyone else is too. In the same way Catholics are convinced they’re a bad person, the de facto assumption is: at least everyone else is a bad person too. There’s a quiet, whispered judgment to Catholic culture. The only person who can judge a Catholic more than themselves (and God) is another Catholic. Anything out of the norm will earn a judging stare. It’s not necessarily a superiority complex, but it is a complex of judgment. This complex is especially strong in the case of when others brag about being a good person. Catholics believe actions speak over words, and if you have to constantly tell everyone you’re a good Christian instead of letting God decide, then you’re prideful and the worst type of sinner. Which ties into the sanctimony in Catholicism. As long as you don’t say it, you can act better than everyone else, and certainly think you’re better than everyone else. (especially non-Catholics lmao)
Catholic Charity/Suffering: One of the most important things to Catholicism is charity. Especially charity when you yourself are already within poverty. This is why those in the clergy take oaths of poverty. Though the churches look flashy, the people within them are expected to live lowly and give to others any excess. (or: give to the Church) It is a good thing to give your happiness away. To suffer is to make you more Catholic. It earns your way to Heaven. God gives you a hard life to teach you lessons and to make you a better person. There isn’t much belief that God will reward you in this life like there is in Evangelicalism. Instead, you are grateful for what you already have, and you give anyway. Your life should be in service, and you are never the least fortunate person. (Catholic charities make up a disproportionate percentage of charity work in America for this reason, but the exact numbers are hard to gauge because the Church does like to... fudge the odds in their favor.)
The Holy Order: As previously mentioned, there is a lack of individualism in Catholicism because there is instead, emphasis on the Holy Order. You have priests and bishops and cardinals and of course, the pope, there to tell you what God means. There isn’t much personal control over religion, you need a priest (or higher) for the Sacraments, you need to be told what to believe, etc. The Church is the highest power, second only to God.
Forgiveness/Piety: No matter how bad of an action you do, it can be forgiven. So long as you are reverent of God and begging for his forgiveness, your actions speak little for who you are. Anything can be prayed away with a few decades of the rosary, and a couple of charitable acts. Catholicism deeply values redemption, so long as it is before God. Catholics like to lament to God, to beg for his help and his forgiveness and they usually assume they’re granted it, so long as they beg and worship enough.
Intercession/Veneration: A big thing Protestants like to accuse Catholics of is “worshipping saints”. The actual term here is veneration. There is a high importance placed on saints in the Catholic Church, and they’re venerated as holy figures who are beside God in Heaven. While they’re not worshipped in their own sense, they are often prayed to. These are prayers of intercession; asking a saint to pray to God on your behalf. Some Catholics honor saints more than others, but it’s a unique factor of Catholicism in comparison to Protestantism, to view people as holy and capable of miracles. Saints are oftentimes viewed as a more human connection, and as a way to reach Divinity through a person who is holier than you.
There are of course other qualities, no religion can be boiled down neatly, but these are the main ones of interest here as we transition into talking about the core tenets of Jason’s character and where these qualities conflict with him. This is not meant to be an all-encompassing list of Jason’s key traits (again, only viewed from a Post-Crisis lens to better narrow the playing field but I think most of these can apply to a well-written Jason on the whole) but rather notable traits that are relevant to the conversation.
As a quick aside before we address these nuances though, I do want to mention that some Catholic headcanoning for Jason is specifically headcanoning him as a cradle Catholic. (meaning: He was born and raised into Catholicism through a Catholic parent.) The reason I don’t see this as much of a talking point is because firstly, a religion someone is born into doesn’t reflect what they choose as an adult, and this essay primarily discusses Catholic!Jason as a religion he actively chooses to practice/identify with. And secondly, given Jason’s history, neither of his parents were present enough in his life to impress a strong religion onto Jason, even if we can assume they practiced one. (Catherine’s headstone had an angel on it, so she was likely Christian of some sort.) Willis was in prison, and Catherine was suffering health issues by the time Jason would’ve been old enough to notice and take in religious values. Furthermore, if Catherine was devoutly religious, specifically Catholic, I believe Jason watching his mother slowly die even as she was praying/attending mass would only distance him from religion, not incline him to follow it. And Bruce raised none of the “Batkids” with religion. So in my opinion, whatever religion Jason was raised with, if he was raised with any, would have little reflection on his religious identity as an adult.
Firstly, whenever a Catholic!Jason is brought up, the biggest thing discussed is murder, as Jason’s lethal morality is a defining characteristic. However, the ethics of his murder are where we lose the vision that is often had with the Catholic!Jason headcanon. Even if we strip the above nuance for a moment and approach this through the idea of Jason using Catholicism as a divine mission of violence, this doesn’t mesh well with how and why Jason does murder.
Murder for Jason is largely an action of praxis, not a larger mission that would be comparable to Bruce’s mission as Batman. Meaning: Jason is not prioritizing the idea of hunting down bad people to the point that it is his end goal, to constantly hunt and find terrible people, but rather he is killing them as he comes across them. When Jason does commit murder for the sake of killing someone as a function of removing a bad person from the world, it tends to be a person he organically comes across. He is not actively hunting criminals, in a Batman-but-lethal-esque style. The main time we see Jason going out of his way to kill people is Lost Days, in which his primary goal is to better himself as a weapon in preparation for his return to Gotham.
Most of Jason’s murders are functional. They serve his current goal, such as him killing drug dealers in part because they are bad people, but largely because they’re in his way. Even with an example such as Brothers In Blood, Jason’s choice to seek out bad people and kill them serves a goal of getting Dick’s attention above all else, hence doing it in a Nightwing suit. Jason does have a clear goal in Under the Red Hood outside of his confrontation with Bruce, one that’s a harm reduction-style controlling of crime in Gotham. Which does not involve him going out and killing every bad person, but rather calling them to heel. This is all to say: the “divine crusader” imagery of going out and targeting sinners with lethal justice is a moral code that does not align with Jason, even if it did align with Catholicism. Jason does not want to live a life where he is targeting and killing “sinners”, and his ideal worldview tends to be one without violence. He doesn’t take joy in killing people or have this idea that he is doing a divine right by the world in his actions, he simply is removing obstacles in his path, or taking out bad people as he comes across them. Jason doesn’t place this high, moral or spiritual importance on murder. He views it as an objective fact of justice sometimes, but he isn’t intending to be a divine missionary as murder, which this Catholic!Jason headcanon often places him as.
Though, while Jason does not love murdering as some kind of hobby, he also certainly doesn’t feel remorse for it. Which brings us to another angle often presented in this headcanon: assigning Jason with “Catholic guilt” over his sins, the primary “sin” of which being his murder. Often there is imagery of Jason with bloody fists and a bowed head asking for forgiveness for what he’s done. It feels very akin to Marvel’s Daredevil character, in how certain popular scenes involve Daredevil asking for forgiveness for violence he’s about to enact, or expressing guilt over enjoying being Daredevil. These scenes work for Daredevil because he’s a deeply Catholic character, but on Jason, they’re misaligned. Attempting to push a religious morality onto Jason he canonically never expresses is at best, just an OOC headcanon, but at worst, forcefully centering American Christian values onto a character. It implies Jason should feel bad for his murders, or that deep down, he must feel bad for them because to be a murderer is not Christ-like of him. Jason is not guilty about killing, no matter how many fan headcanons want to try to put him in a position where he might be, such as ideas where he kills the wrong person or is Catholic. That is not to say there are absolutely no actions of Jason’s that he might feel guilty for, and in some world where he’s religious, expresses penance over. But these actions Jason could or does regret are not actions reflective of his moral character. Strict Catholic morals just don’t overlay well onto Jason and the only way they can is by forcing a character-breaking guilt complex onto him.
Ultimately, Jason’s moral codes and actions reflect an end-goal of control, not moral sanctity. Jason may try to convince others to see his perspective and agree with him about murder or how to reduce crime, but he’s not grandstanding on a moral soapbox. Jason is not trying to project a holy, reverent importance on his actions. He’s fully aware the way he does things is often messy and not pretty. He understands the cost of collateral damage more than the fandom seems to acknowledge. The ends justifying the means is often highlighted in Jason’s actions as well as how he explains his justifications. Meaning, Church-like ideas of a perfect and sanctimonious mission do not work with Jason. He doesn’t want to achieve something morally enlightened such as the eradication of crime, because he’s aware that isn’t feasible within Gotham, or most anywhere else. What he wants to achieve is harm reduction and control of crime. The black and whiteness of Christian mindsets, where actions are either objectively good or objectively bad, fails to work here. And further fails to work under specifically Catholicism, which values sanctity and obsessively perfect ritual.
Jason is a character of many things, but primarily: he is a character of self determination and a rejection of hierarchical positions of power. He does not submit to those above him, he does not follow orders on how or why he should do certain things. His moral code is self-defined, as are his actions. Clearly, this would put him at conflict with the Catholic Church, an as-before-mentioned incredibly hierarchal and rigid power structure. But further, it even puts him at odds with the concept of God. A God that Jason would have to submit to, follow the rules of, and be beholden to is not a God Jason could ever follow. Because in essence: it replaces one dominating and controlling figure in Jason’s life with another. Jason rejects the control Batman attempts to put on his life and his morality, so why would he embrace the control of God? Making Jason Catholic in headcanon often subjects him, ironically, to the very thing he is confronting about in Bruce. Someone telling him what to do and who to be and how to fight crime. Even going back to Jason’s Robin days, he is consistently at odds with Bruce’s opinions on what should be done about crime. (see: the Felipe issue) Jason does not take well to being a blind follower. The entire purpose of his Red Hood arc is to challenge the indomitable control Batman holds over the “rules” of how to do superheroics. He challenges Bruce’s despotnature, and would do the same to any religion, if he was raised within one. It’s in his nature to question and to push back against the ideas of pacifism, love thy neighbor, and forgiveness. As was the whole point in the Batman-Joker confrontation.
Building off of the last point, while Jason opposes Batman specifically, he opposes the status quo entirely and exists to disrupt it. This is why he “targets” people like Mia Dearden, who have no direct relation to Batman; because he’s trying to break others out of the cycle he was in. The closest Jason ever came to proselytizing in a religious way wasn’t him actually trying to get Mia to agree with him and share his morals, it was to get her to question the system she exists within. Jason is trying to break cycles. In a way, he’s opposing a doctrine that could be compared to religion: the doctrine of superheroes and sidekicks and how they’re considered an unquestionable “commandment” of saving the world, that the sidekick is obedient to the hero and takes on the hero’s ethical codes. While a Catholic!Jason is often claimed in a counterculture “Catholicism as an aesthetic not a religion” way, assigning him such a rigid religious framework ironically becomes antithetical to his character in this way. Because it takes a character whose existence is about challenging status quos and subjects him to a massive status quo: organized religion. It inserts Jason into a comfortable cultural norm, being a part of one of the most popular and “default” religions in America, just for the sake of aesthetics, which flattens the most interesting thing about him.
So, if we’re going to focus just on aesthetics and not Catholic doctrine, can we find a middle ground? With folk Catholicism, possibly. Folk Catholicism does a blend of aesthetics and community that seems to appeal to what people find so intriguing about this headcanon.
For the sake of this discussion, the rough definition of folk Catholicism is: the blending of cultural/regional/local beliefs with Catholicism. It syncretizes Catholicism with the folklore/folk magic/folk practices of the people of the region it exists in, making it highly variable from region to region. Simply put: it is Catholicism of the people, not the Church, which brings into question if it’s “actually Catholic” or not. I do not have a neat answer for that, I think it is both Catholic and it isn’t. Every practitioner will be different. But some key features of folk Catholicism worth noting are:
Disinterest in the Church/not following the doctrine of the Church. No member of the clergy, from priest to pope, holds any real power over what folk Catholics do or believe. They care about their personal experiences and cultural norms first. More importantly, they care about the needs of the people, and the faith bends to fit those needs.
Syncretic practices (ie: blending of Catholicism with beliefs of the people that are not Catholic. This can be “pagan” or polytheistic beliefs, or folk magic beliefs.) from the people practicing. This makes folk Catholicism place an importance on community, ancestor work, and culture. Hence why every iteration of it is so different. Santeria (Afro-Caribbean) does not look like Benedicaria (Italian) which does not look like Candomble(Afro-Brazilian), etc. There is often ritual work that looks like witchcraft, but doesn’t necessarily fall under that label.
Saints hold even more focus and reverence in folk Catholicism, going from veneration to actual worship, with altars and ritual work surrounding saints. The ritual work isn’t always positive, saint punishing is its own complicated (and debated) topic, but the most important facet of saints is the reverence put on the divine feminine. Mother Mary is the most prominent example, but there’s also figures like Santa Muerta, Mary Magdalene, and Joan of Arc given more time and space in folk Catholicism. Because again, this is a practice of the people that is filling in the gaps left by the Church, it carves out more of a space for women, especially when it comes to themes of motherhood.
If I were to personally write a folk Catholic!Jason, given my experience, certain elements I’d attempt to highlight on that manage to find a healthy balance between Jason and this religious experience would be:
Charity & Mutual Aid: applying Jason’s harm reduction mentality to crime as a way of protecting a community is one of the best ways to highlight Jason’s moral positions. Folk Catholicism is just that, a religion of the folk. It’s incredibly communal, and not something that exists sitting alone in a quiet, dusty church. There are of course, many headcanons about Jason protecting sex workers, protecting kids from drugs, and protecting the disenfranchised. (With most of these headcanons having a basis in canon to begin with) Putting Jason in a position where if he has a folk Catholic-esque faith, he focuses that faith on helping others and building stronger communities in Gotham is a way to focus this headcanon on Jason’s kindness, not his violence.
Subjugated Women: as mentioned in the above, Jason has a canonical history with respecting and protecting marginalized women, particularly sex workers and victims of sexual violence. One of the biggest ways folk Catholicism differs from the Catholic Church is its reverence of women. Female saints, madonnas, and martyrs are beloved by the community. Many folk Catholics often put Mother Mary above God, seeing her as the most important holy figure in their worship. This could be particularly interesting to see in Jason, someone who has canonically longed for maternal love and had a complicated history with it. If Jason is going to worship any Catholic figure, it’s going to be a loving mother, not a God off in the sky. That is where he would find comfort in religion, if he had to be religious in the first place.
Gospel of Mary Magdalene: This is where I get a little rhapsodical on the topic, but I think if Jason were to be interested in religion, he would apply his interest in academia to religion. He wouldn’t take a Church doctrine blindly, and would want to engage with all religious texts, canonical and non-canonical to develop his own opinions, leading him to apocryphal gospels, like Mary Magdalene’s. Again, a woman who has been subjugated and a strong feminine presence. Jason just is a respecter of women constantly, I deeply am of the belief if he were folk Catholic, he’d relate strongly to her Gospel and would be a Mary Magdalene devotee. This is admittedly more personal headcanon than anything else, but I think it’s worth noting since it ties neatly into Jason’s history with women. (Also this Gospel presents the idea there is no sin, it is mankind who makes sin in man-made doctrines, thus rejecting the idea of people being born with the Original Sin, which I think Jason would fuck with. But I digress.)
Rejection of the Church: this point is a simple one and self explanatory: while it’s interesting to headcanon Jason believing in certain religious ideals, it’s almost always incompatible to make him exist within the Church. And since folk Catholicism is likewise in its rejection of Holy Order, there is an alignment that could be had.
Action Over Belief: Orthodoxy (the word itself, not the branch of Christianity) loosely means “correct belief”, while Orthopraxy is “correct action”. Almost all Christian denominations are orthodoxic, meaning they value what a person believes over what a person does. This is where atonement and forgiveness come into play; as long as someone believes in God “correctly”, it doesn’t matter what they’ve done. This obviously does not align with how Jason views people’s beliefs, in that he wholly believes people should be judged based on their actions. Because folk Catholicism blends with local non-Christian religions, it oftentimes leans more orthopraxic, in which emphasis is placed not on having the exact correct “beliefs” but rather on doing the right things. This mindset better clicks with Jason, in which less rigidity and value is placed on believing exactly what the Church says. So long as the worship and the intent is there, there is religion to be found, usually in doing good for yourself and others which as touched on above, aligns with Jason’s harm reduction.
Guilt: If Catholic guilt has to be assigned to Jason, there are other places to insert it that don’t disrupt his moral character. It makes the most sense for Jason to feel guilty about those whom he has failed to protect. In a way, that’s what fuels Red Hood. When he was Robin, he repeatedly saw how Bruce’s moral framework failed victims and protected criminals. Jason existed alongside Bruce and aided in these actions. Which is not his fault, given his was a child lacking autonomy, but it’s clear he expresses guilt and upset when a victim is hurt and he can’t stop it. If I have to imagine Jason bowing his head and praying for forgiveness, the best way to place such an image is here: in which he’s praying over those he couldn’t save, not those he killed. Himself included.
Born With Sin: There is a pervasive idea, both in fandom and current canon, that Jason was “born wrong”. He was the bad seed, the angry Robin, etc and so on. And since Catholicism believes in Original Sin, it seems those two things align a bit too well. Obviously, Jason wasn’t born wrong, and he’d likely reject the thought of anyone being born a sinner. Again, rejecting Catholic doctrine. But, the idea of rebirth and redefining oneself outside of who they were before is important to Catholicism and Christianity as a whole, that anyone can change. That mindset is intriguing to place on Jason, as the rebirth ideal can be applied to Robin being reborn as Red Hood. Jason can pick and choose which parts of doctrine to follow, if he’s folk Catholic, and find comfort in reinventing himself while not being beholden to his supposed “sins”. (again, tying in the apocrypha of Mary Magdalene’s views on sin which I totally had a point in bringing up that wasn’t just self-serving lol)
Now, even with all of the above, it’s clear there’s still gaps and awkward leaps of logic that have to be made to even slightly make Jason work as a Catholic. A very specific framework of Catholicism has to be applied to him, whole chunks of religious doctrine have to be ignored, and an understanding of Catholicism that goes beyond surface-level aesthetics needs to be applied. I don’t think Jason needs to be or should be Catholic, based on who he is in canon. The concept is flawed from birth. I included sections on folk Catholicism not as a way to proselytize what I think should be written, but to try to find reasonable middle ground with fans who hold this headcanon without looking like a complete and utter buzzkill who’s just thinking too hard about a headcanon that, admittedly, is mostly for the vibes.
Because, to be clear, I do not believe whatsoever that Catholicism can be “appropriated” by these sorts of headcanons. There is no harm being caused to the most influential religion in the world by some fans of a comic book character gutting it for aesthetics without understanding its culture or doctrine. With the rise in tradCatholic converts (ie: those not raised in Catholicism converting to the religion because of their interest in its supposed conservatism, rigid rules, and rejection of modern reformation) there’s a new push in people insisting that certain things are “disrespectful” to Catholicism and God as a whole, like sexy nun outfits or the “improper use of a rosary” tag on archive of our own. Simply put: you cannot oppress the oppressor. The large-scale harm Catholicism has done to indigenous communities and marginalized peoples are in no world equitable to someone “aestheticizing” Catholicism for character headcanons or religious kink porn. In fact, I think more people should get into Catholicism strictly for the aesthetics just to piss off tradCaths.
And on the character side of things, headcanoning and fanworks are ultimately just fans playing with barbies in whatever way they find fun. There is no unholy degradation being done to Jason Todd in someone drawing him holding a rosary. In fact, there are far worse headcanons out there for Jason that are much more rooted in classism or other forms of bigotry, even if unknowingly, that perpetuate harmful narratives than just someone taking Priest!Jason and running with him, as that’s where this whole thing comes from in the first place: finding the idea of Priest!Jason, frankly, kind of hot. It’s not always trying to be deep and doing all the things that this meta is criticizing. Sometimes it’s just silly fun. But ultimately, that said, headcanons/creative ideas can sometimes reflect on internal biases we hold. And while Catholic!Jason has an obvious root; there is still some level of consideration to be had in the ways we default to assuming every character must be Christian. This Christian defaultism flattens and devalues unique character traits to homogenize them into the “norm”, and doing so to Jason Todd feels particularly egregious. His entire point is to challenge status quos, not fall right back into them. None of these headcanons are intending to be “that deep” in the first place, but sometimes they try too hard to justify themselves narratively and bastardize both the religion and the character in the process. And while Catholicism can’t be appropriated, it does still hold a global political power over the world, and leaning too hard into treating it just as a pile of aesthetics that can be vaguely applied to anything sometimes treats it with a little too much levity. Catholicism is a spiritual thing, but it’s also a tangible one, with tangible powers. This meta is mostly food for thought, challenging both preconceptions of Catholicism that make it look a lot nicer than it really is, as well as challenging how people think about Jason in a spiritual and moral sense. You can’t replace Batman with God, you can barely even make Jason align with some of the most basic aspects of Catholicism, but if you really want to, you can try to meet somewhere in the middle. Because hey, who doesn’t look hot in a clerical collar.
Hi! Some of you know I've been working on a document debunking a variety of myths and lies about Devin Grayson over the past few months. It's finally at the point where I feel comfortable sharing it. While it will probably change as I learn about more things people say about her (and also I hope to update the links and recommendations sections) I like to think it is currently pretty comprehensive.
A Very Long List of Debunked Devin Grayson Misconceptions and Lies Introduction Section One: The Major Lies & Misconceptions Devin Grayson
I ask that you please read the introduction as it has some important context for this whole thing. Thank you!
Also I fucking hate C.Dixson and Wolfman (or sth I forgot the name) and the other one that wrote Jason in Nightwing suit.
I used to hate Devin.G alot but I did not hate her more than that one writer who wrote Dick's run in NY after Flashpoint, where Jay ran around in the Nightwing suit.
I do not hate Devin as much and probably is heading toward being neutural about her, for the time being.
There is a sort of irony in the fact that the post you're replying to is actively trying to dispell misinformation about Devin Grayson, as well as emphasize the face she a person and she should be treated like a person and valued more than the fictional characters she writes, only for you to reply and exemplify the sort of behavior this post is trying to politely call out. my friend Kelso put together a beautiful and as impartial document as possible about Devin Grayson, trying to remain reasonable with the benefit of the doubt about the topic. but I'm going to be much more direct with you than Kelso is.
your statement "Devin.G made DareDevil SA'ed Yelena" is at best, a woefully misconstruing of the events in the comic and at worst, just blatantly untrue. the comic you're referring to -which i'll be frank and point blank, i do not believe you've read- is Black Widow (2001), a three-issue arc called Breakdown.
the page below, is the entirety of the sexual assault in question.
now there are multiple things to note about this storyline:
*Natasha* is the one orchestrating this. she had her face and Yelena's face surgically switched and placed Yelena in her life to convinced Yelena that she was Natasha Romanova, and that she killed Yelena Belova, with Fury's help. her point in doing this is to show Yelena that she is a spy, not a hero, and she is someone else's puppet and not in control of her own life. Natasha is trying to save Yelena here.
Matt is aware of the above scheme and is in on it from the beginning. he does the above bc of his and Natasha's romantic relationship at the time, so by kissing Yelena, he further plays into convincing Yelena she is Natasha. however, he is against it from the beginning. he expresses reluctance the entire time, and repeatedly calls this a sadistic ploy.
(as described, Matt witnessing the face swap surgery and dissenting)
and furthermore, Matt is even the one who comforts Yelena once she realizes she's not Natasha and is confused and upset.
now, I'm not going to argue the fact that is clearly all violating to Yelena, and goes against her consent. the entire storyline is incredibly upsetting for her, but i would argue Matt kissing her is the *least* of her trauma, given she reacts positively to Matt, comforting her, but is very hostile toward Natasha during their confrontation. bc at it's core, this is a story about Yelena and Natasha, and all events are orchestrated by Natasha. it is *supposed* to be violating and uncomfortable. Matt's purpose in the story is not to just be the guy who kisses Yelena without her consent; he's there to be the hero dissenting and arguing against the plan and pointing out it's cruelty.
because that is the point of this storyline. it is Natasha trying to paint the difference in spies (Natasha and Yelena) and heroes (those like Matt) and how spis are not as kind and moral and just. Natasha is trying to get it through to Yelena that she is a pawn, and she is not on the righteous path she believes she is, and if she continues to work within the Red Room, she's just going to keep being a pawn. Natasha is not being painted as a hero, nor is she painting herself as one. she is doing gritty and uncomfortable spy work. agreeing with Natasha's decisions is not the point of the story- i'd even argue her decisions are *not* supposed to be agreeable, hence emphasizing Matt's disagreement with them. Natasha isn't a good hero in any of her good stories, she is a good spy. and if her actions in this comic make you uncomfortable and dislike her, then you should know this is the tip of the iceberg of how she behaves in Black Widow comics and her comics just might not be content you should consume or discuss if you cannot handle their morally grey content.
if you've read the story and want to form opinions about its content and the actions within it, it's your prerogative. you don't have to like it. but it's worth an interesting note: this story was co-written by Greg Rucka. but when this comic is used for a smear campaign against Devin Grayson, he's funnily enough, never brought up. because Rucka is a pretty beloved comic writer. personally i can say i've loved just about everything i've read by him (yes, including this story. i think it's a nuanced and interesting story if you do not approach it with real-world morals.) Devin Grayson is of course, lambasted. because some authors get passes, and some don't. and there's a clear pattern in who doesn't. (it's women and other marginalized authors.)
also worth noting: in your first reblog i find it fascinating you would lump in Bruce Jones (the guy who wrote Jason dressing up as Nightwing... which also I question if you read. it wasn't a post-Flashpoint storyline. Brothers in Blood is pre-Flashpoint. but that is admittedly nitpicky so i digress.) Bruce Jones' writing in Brothes in Blood is... fine, imo. the plot is absurd, and it's perhaps a bit sexist towards Cheyenne, but i don't even think it's OOC for Jason or Dick, just a little silly and absurd. so to pit it on the level of Wolfman, a writer who has written rape plots that he does not treat as rape, and Dixon, an *actual bonafide Neo-Nazi*, feels like you're not even against these stories for articulate harm they could cause to the real world through the biases they're written with. but rather just that you're upset they mischaracterize (in your opinion) a character you enjoy, or frame them in a poor light.
which is what brings me to my ultimate and most important point here: it's REALLY weird and unsavory for you to graphically describe the death of a REAL WOMAN that you wish you could enact over, and i cannot stress this enough, comic book characters. you can hate the Black Widow: Breakdown storyline. you can hate any storyline you want by Devin Grayson, or anyone. you can even believe they hold real-world implications for the writer's worldview that they're pushing onto the reader. (which i don't think is true for Grayson, but is for Dixon and the ilk) but to wish violent and graphic death is frankly, abhorrent of you.
Matt Murdock is not real. Dick Grayson is not real. Jason Todd is not real, Yelena Belova is not real. Devin Grayson *is*. she is a living, breathing person and you are prioritizing lines on a paper above a human woman because she wrote a story you didn't like. (and seemingly didn't even *read*.) even if, i hold your hand and pretend this story was what you think it was, and Matt was this evil aggressive rapist, then... what? she would've written a bad, OOC storyline. her and just about everyone else in the industry. this is just how American superhero comics *work*. this is the subject matter they deal in, and if you are unable to comfortably interact with it, then I have to ask, why are you a fan of it. it's fine to not be able to handle this sort of storyteling, it is *supposed* to be envelope-pushing. but it's your job to disengage, not add fuel to the fire in a conversation where we are politely begging people to stop smearing a woman and spreading lies about her that convince you you're allowed to fantasize about torturing and murdering her !!! that is *weird*. and i *do* think it is ultimately misogynistic, bc despite saying you didn't like these other *male* authors, you did not feel the need to describe how you'd torture them if they dared to write a comic you probably wouldn't read in the first place.
this is exactly the sort of post Kelso's (well written and very interesting !!!) document is about. you are the sort of person who requires it to be written. bc you take even a silver of a reason to dislike the stories a woman wrote and fantasize about hurting her, regardless of how based in reality your reasons are. (which shouldn't matter either way, let's be frank.) when you have every chance to disengage, not read her work, not talk about her, and just... read and write these characters in your preferred content style.
i am begging people, that if they are *going* to have aggressive opinions against Devin Grayson, at at LEAST just. read. her. work. and formulate an opinion based on the content within it, not what someone on tumblr told you. read her interviews. read her comics. and if you don't want to do that, they don't speak on her and boldly contribute to a misogynistic hate campaign full of violent speech and death wishes. have some decorum.
important edit: the person I replied to apologized and regrets their words, and that should be respected! do not use my post to dogpile them when they've reflected on their actions. I'm keeping this up for posterity sake of it being another debunk about Devin Grayson's writing, and to continue to share Kelso's hard work in creating such a valuable resources <3 that is all, be kind to each other
I will die on my grave "Dick was not portrayed as a child in the 40's"
I've already said this and will do it again if necessary.
I'll make a comparison between Robin in the Batman comics and Dottie from Little Dot.
Let's go with Dick/Robin
Notice something? Dick's height varies greatly depending on the artist.
His physical proportions are very similar to those of an adult.
Why? Because the artists used the nine-head scheme.
An ideal artistic scheme for elongated and slimmer proportions, used mostly in fashion.
(For standard proportions usually artists use seven heads.)
Also, Dick reaches Bruce's shoulder in many volumes. Bruce is about six feet tall.
What ten-year-old is five feet tall?!
I'm sure Dick was initially supposed to be a teenager around 18 and Bruce in the first volumes, when he starts his career as Batman, is around 20, almost same age.
Someone might object by saying, "Well, it was probably more difficult to draw children!"
Okay, let me introduce you to Dottie, the main character from "Little Dot".
Same era as the first Batman issues. Notice anything?
About 4/5 heads in the head chart.
She is recognizable as a child. She has the proportions of a child. She is drawn with the outline of a child, which corresponds to approximately 4 or 5 heads.
So, seriously, when people tell me, "Dick was always meant to be a child," I laugh.
Because he clearly wasn't.
I think it's more likely that some artists wanted him to be a child, while other artists drew him as an adult, and that there were multiple internal meetings that led to Dick's design (and age) being reassigned over time.
(Anyway, my main HC is that Dick fell in love with Bruce after taking on the mantle of Nightwing, Dick has 20/22ys, and Bruce fell in love over the years, in a slow way and thus leading both of them to years of painful denial. PAINFUL DENIAL, I SAID.)
hmm, if we're going to be discussing brudick specifically through a historical context as a way to validate its existence (not that any ship needs to be validated) i think we owe it to the history of comics to be accurate about them, and it's not hard to find these comics and read them, as opposed to only using specific artistic examples as a backing. (which I say with genuinely no shade intended)
Dick Grayson verifiably was a child from his debut. he was created to market to the teenage boy audience, and it makes no sense to adult-code a character meant for children. and whilst children's media certainly will treat children like adults to justify mature plotlines, that's not the case for early Robin storytelling. for example:
Batman #20, by Bob Kane himself, which notably came out in 1943, not only positions Robin as a child who requires guardianship and is at the whims of the legal system, making decisions about who he can live with, but it also has Bruce say, verbatim, "Dick is like my own son!". he is not an adult in this story, nor any other story this early on. he is a child. in fact, he remains a child throughout the 50s, because this story is not unique as a "court drama" of Bruce fighting for Dick's custody.
Batman #57, again by Bob Kane, from 1950. wherein this time, it's Dick saying "You're like a father to me!". this is a child with the autonomy of a child (that is to say: none) who, if we're going to use the art argument here, *looks* like a child.
(and fwiw: i think the art argument breaks down to a much simpler occam's razor in which: he is a superhero. he is going to be buff and large and not looking like your average little girl. because again, this is fantasy material for teen boys, who like the thought of looking strong and menacing. if you have to extrapolate that heavily on cover art alone, the point becomes easy to poke holes in.)
Dick and Bruce don't enter their complicated sort-of-brothers-sort-of-something-else relationship until the late 60s and 70s, where Dick *is* an adult on page, because he's shipped off to college. [source: Batman #217, from 1969] the main reason for this was so Robin solo stories and Teen Titans stories had more breathing room. Dick was independent enough from Bruce to be embarking on his own, but still close by when a classic Batman-Robin teamup was needed. because Dick was operating on his own and as a member of his own team [with Teen Titans starting it's own line in 1966] he felt older, and the vibe shifted between him and Bruce where now Dick is clearly an equal to Batman and no longer treated like a ward and/or son.
and then of course, when Bruce fires Dick and takes on Jason Post-Crisis [Batman #408, 1987], they enter their "breakup era" which further complicates how Dick and Bruce feel about each other and view each other, bc neither of them seem inclined to wanting to claim the other in any sort of familial way. and they don't smooth any of this over until Batman: Prodigal [1994-1995] which gives a pretty significant time for their relationship to feel undefinable but with a clear undercurrent of deep love for each other.
but of course, if we *do* want to look at older comics that aren't by Bob Kane, we do see this distinction of Dick not being Bruce's son *or* brother, and instead "ward" being it's own, unique category of relationship, to them.
Detective Comics #234 in 1956, by Edmond Hamilton. but it's crucial to keep in mind, this nebulous and undefinable "ward" status *still* posits Dick as a child, as it requires Dick to be a minor.
and while it shouldn't be dismissed that *no* shipping of brudick happened based solely off of comics during the Golden and/or Silver Age, the biggest historical legacy the ship left was in the wake of the 1966 Adam West Batman show. in which Dick *does* look and act like an adult because well, he was *cast* as an adult. (and later on, the 1997 Batman and Robin movie would add to this queer legacy because again, Dick was played by an adult.) that show, which had far more eyes on it than comic books, was what introduced Batman and Robin to the cultural mainstream. it also introduced them as camp icons, because that show played up the campiness of Batman and the flamboyancy of Batman, which was relatable to queer culture of the time. and again, the 1997 movie also leaned camp and queer in its aesthetics.
this whole narrative of Batman and Robin as a comic book queer legacy going back that far is complicated. Seduction of the Innocent will get thrown around like nobody's business, but what's left out of that discussion is that 1, Seduction of the Innocent primarily wasn't about superhero comics and especially not about Batman and 2, the claim Wertham makes about a gay boy fantasizing about Batman was something he made up.
there's fascinating discussion to be had in how the comics were claimed as homosocial imagery by the queer community (this article i think discusses it well, as it mentions the difference between purposeful subtext and a gay reading) but you cannot remove Robin's age from the comic book angle of that reading to make it more comfortable. the point of it is that since it is a gay reading, not proper subtext, a gay reader can project elements onto the story that aren't there (the queerness), and remove elements that are (Dick's ambiguous but clearly minor age) to find elements of themselves. because it was so hard to find queerness in media back then, working with scraps and bending canon in ways that ignored certain elements was just how ppl chose to interact with the text. it doesn't make Batman (nor the fans) look pedophilic; it simply shows how queer ppl had to fight for leftover scraps. especially considering back then, canon was a very malleable thing within comics. it was eaiser to pick and choose and to ignore, which fandom still does. (some brudick shippers exclusively age Dick up, some do not.) neat and palatable queer representation is a very recent gift that is often taken for granted by the community, when looking back on queer history and where queer icons were made out of fictional characters.
i suppose my main point is, that you shouldn't attempt to sanitize the queer history of a ship (ie: trying to rewrite history and make claims about Dick being written as an adult from the beginning) in order to make it more comfortable for your modern-day queerness. really, no ship needs to be palatable to exist, but this one specifically doesn't, especially when it's being claimed as a queer history icon. sanitizing it just erases the struggles queers of past generations had in even finding symbols to project onto by acting like they would only ever project onto morally pure options and not kick and claw and be proudly messy in their history.
Everyone celebrating RH2025's cancellation with absolutely zero critical thought COME ONNNN. Doesn't it concern you that Lobdell can work at DC for YEARS after confessing to sexual misconduct and Tom King gets put on every book under the sun despite being ex-CIA and pushing his misogynistic American nationalist bullshit into everything he writes, but the second a trans woman who they KNEW tweeted like this (she's been tweeting like this for years, they knew what sorts of things she posted and what politics she held BEFORE they hired her) steps out of line (to express that she has no empathy for a man who would have celebrated her death in turn) her book is cancelled and she's fired? Probably doesn't help that people had been calling for a boycott since before the comic came out, I guess to protect the dignity of their tragic little fictional man, and then it got review bombed by people who didn't even read it.
People keep saying that you have to maintain a degree of professionalism when you're working with DC, but clearly that isn't true if sexually harassing someone in front of crowds of people isn't grounds for termination. You have to face that the standards DC holds for women, especially trans women (as well as other marginalized people) are different than the standards they hold for cis straight white men who get placed on every big title no matter what they do, and we need to be angry about that instead of celebrating a trans woman being fired because you didn't like how she wrote Jason Todd after one issue.
if you were never going to give this series a fair shot because of the assumptions you made on it before it came out, I bet the news of DC firing GFM and cancelling Red Hood 2025 is wonderful and worth celebrating to you, or whatever.
but I do think we really ought to carefully consider the implications that DC is all about using iconography of killing fascists in their biggest movie of the year and how that is unequivocally a good thing, but the moment someone employed by them is mildly happy a fascist is dead, they will immediately get fired. all the while, Tom King, an honest to god war criminal, stays gainfully employed. ultimately any political stance DC puts on a show about that is just that, a show, when they've made it clear exactly what type of people they're willing to employ and what ones get fired for stepping out of line.
DC clearly wanted the imagery and ""vibes"" of giving Jason Todd a dark, mature, political storyline, but clearly could not fathom the idea that when hiring someone who writes those kinds of stories, they tend to actually hold the political beliefs they're putting in your books, and not just dancing around a performative neo-liberal stance that lacks any substance aside from lukewarm feel-good moments. they hired GFM for the exact thing they fired her for- the political beliefs and envelope-pushing content she's known for that would've suited Jason well, if she had a chance to go where she was going to go with the story. but hey, I'm sure the next neo-liberal Scott Lobdell knockoff who gets to write Jason will be so much better and won't at all play into DC's obvious trend of victim blaming Jason.
and truly, good luck for Jason *or* Helena to get any significant appearances for a *while* until DC feels enough time has passed and they've brushed it far enough under the rug. even if this story was bad, they were at least *getting* a story and now they're going to get thrown right back into the pile of background Batfamily characters to fill out a roster and never have their personal stories explored or told. and they especially won't be told by writers bold enough to not soften either of these characters morals to make them more palatable to a wider audience and the company selling them. (and fwiw: I actually read issue one. it was fine. the story was interesting and the character work was not egregious.)
you can dislike GFM for whatever personal reasons you have, but if you think DC firing a trans woman the moment she says something they don't like about the politics she made it clear she stood on from the get-go is a *good thing* because now your favorite *fictional characters* are safe from what could've been a medicore run, I honest to god think you're missing the bigger picture in all this. because this is DC showing exactly where they stand as a company and how little they'll back the supposed progressive stories they're telling.
Now that I'm thinking about it... How many of the batkids (especially Robins) had their first inappropriate crush on Bruce?
Like, most kids have it on a teacher, or someone in a similar position of power. But Bruce is the ultimate "adult who showed kindness to me" for his kids - sometimes he's even the first to have done so.
Add in that they're all at least half traumatized, and that's got to fuck with their heads.
hi! bit new here so sorry if it's been answered, but did you happen to read DC's knight terrors: robin? if so i'd love to hear your thoughts on jason and tim in that comic!
hi! i don't think i've talked in depth about my opinions on KT: Robin, no! i've definitely mentioned it in passing, bc my opinions on it overall are that it's very... lackluster, to be nice. i read the entire Knight Terrors event when it came out so i view it both as a weak entry on Jason and Tim's character, and a weak entry of the overall event. it's nowhere near the worst, i rated it a 5/10 when i read it, but it pales compared to -in my opinion- the writing in the better stories like KT: Detective Comics or KT: Poison Ivy.
i'm largely underwhelmed by Jason and Tim's relationship in the Rebirth era in general. it didn't hold onto the closeness the New-52 gave them, which is a valid choice when re-canonizing Post-Crisis, but it also doesn't have them as antagonistic as they are Post-Crisis. it's this strange, waffling middle ground where they can't seem to decide if they like or dislike each other. they snark at each other, but then are the best of brothers by the end of it. and Knight Terrors really highlights on this. Jason and Tim are snarky- particularly Jason, who rlly seems to dislike Tim. Jason has some interesting lines at the beginning, i think my favorite part of the comic is when Jason says Tim is too far up Batman's ass. they're just very... tropeified? Tim is the smart one who immediately figures out what's going on, which is a critique i have of Knight Terrors overall. i felt like in too many of the stories, the characters immediately knew they were dreaming and thus didn't take their fears as seriously. when the whole point of this event was the horror of it, seeing everyone react to their deepest fears. i had the most fun with the stories where the character truly thought it was real and they were truly petrified. and KT:R didn't play into that, bc it wanted you to see Tim as uber smart.
i'm not entirely against the "worst fears" given to both Tim and Jason. while i will vehemently die on the hill that Tim's worst fear is becoming Batman and what being Batman would do to him (esp post-A Lonely Place of Living) i do like the idea of his worst fear being not being fast enough to save his father. and Jason's worst fear being his own death and not saving his mother is fine. it's the easy choice, but it isn't a terrible one. i'm rather annoyed by how the comic goes overboard with the villain monologuing. i suppose it makes it more dramatic, but i think it makes for poor writing if you need the villain to slam the reader of the head with a monologue rather than assume they'll just get it. i don't need to be told the fear Tim is facing by the Evil Robin, the same goes for Jason. the fears speak for themselves, and i think the horror element would've come across stronger if we were just allowed to watch the nightmares play out and see Jason/Tim react to them rather than be quite obviously told why this is so horrifying for them.
the second issue is where all my issues really lie, though. issue one is... fine, it's just not particularly strong. but at least Jason and Tim feel vaguely like the characters they're supposed to be. Jason's snarky and violent and whatever, Tim's trying to logic his way out. it's very Rebirth-y, but the point gets across. and then the second issue dives into them trying to comfort each other and it just... falls apart.
not only do i haaate the thought of Jason and Tim comforting each other through their nightmares -or at least, managing to do it well- i think so many things both of them say are outright wrong. this comic sort of perpetuates the idea Jason is pushing people away, which... historically, he's really *not*. especially not the Batfamily. i don't think him hanging up on Oracle so he can do a mission alone counts as pushing people away. and as nice a line as "Batman failed you [Jason]" is, i don't see it coming from Tim Drake, of all people. who -as this comic even acknowledges- can be a Batman apologist. (they're both massive Batman apologists in Rebirth but that's neither here nor there) i think having Jason get very "woe is me" blaming himself for his death is flattening to his feelings on his death. it makes sense for Tim to blame himself for his father's death, but there's still that over-the-top "woe is me" factor. and i just hate it's repeated narrative that Tim "demanded" to be Robin (literally not what happened in ALPOD i feel like this fandom gaslights me sometimes) and this has him convinced that he's somehow unwanted. and again, having Jason be the one to soothe Tim and insist he's cool and badass for choosing this is such a slap in the face to Jason's issues with Robin, and how Jason has historically felt about teenage sidekicks. it's a cliche sort of scene, and it *really* doesn't work for Jason and Tim, bc we haven't earned this relationship we're being shown, where i can believe either of these characters like each other enough to be soothed by the other. it's lazy writing, and just... doesn't work for these two. i always felt it was such an odd choice to pair Jason and Tim together, even just ignoring how underexplained the mechanics are of them sharing a nightmare. other characters who share nightmares tended to do so with people they had deep connection with (the Shazamily, for example) but these two don't fit together and it just feels rather stilted.
the final narrative of Jason not being alone and Tim being stronger than he thinks is why i think the fears fall apart when dissected. i don't think Jason fears being alone, and i don't think Tim fears not being strong enough. it's a challenge of writing an event like this, giving a character a "worst" fear that feels thematically satisfactory (bc obviously it's pretty boring if Batman's worst fear is just a stereotypical phobia like. escalators. or bees. most phobias irl are phobias bc they're illogical and humans don't need justification for fear but. that makes for a far less interesting story, so.) but even then, i don't think the challenge was tackled *well*. it's cliche and doesn't dig into either of these characters. this comic takes the easiest way out with both Jason and Tim. it takes the easy plot, with the easy tropes, and has an easy ending. it also just logically caves in on itself. if we establish this nightmare realm doesn't follow physics or logic, then why did both Tim and Jason's nightmares just sit and not bother them while they had their deep conversayiong hyping each other up? that felt rather silly i won't lie. the final hurrah fight scene is just. tiring. like i said, it's all cliches and says nothing about either character. if anything, it just serves to further flatten them and mischaracterize them.
i like the art well enough, but it does sort of feel like the story was shaped around the cool designs for Nightmare Red Hood and Nightmare Robin, and it's being carried by how cool they look rather than just telling an authentic story about their fears.
and as a dirty JayTim shipper, personally i feel like this does nothing for me. it doesn't tap into what i find intriguing about their dynamic. even the New-52 felt more interesting in the JayTim dynamic it built- this is just a pale copy of it. if you're going to reheat the N52's nachos and make them comfort each other, you gotta at least keep the smooth dynamic they have where they click together and know each other better than anyone. but this isn't using that framework, so it wants you to believe they're less amicable, while also having them get along far too easily, and be far too cheerful. in a way it almost feels like they don't actually *know* each other at all, and are just speaking to each other's legacies more than their personhood. maybe everything Jason and Tim say about each other is true in the comic, but it's a surface-level read. there's no bite to it, and whenever i'm analyizing Jason and Tim's Rebirth relationship, i regularly forget this comic even *exists*. like most big DC events, it has the pitfalls of lacking emotional follow-through once the event finished so we can make room for The Next Big Thing, which means the "lessons" this comic is trying to teach Tim and Jason feel immediately forgotten. maybe this comic could be more interesting if Jason and Tim really did work together more afterward, and Jason reached out to Tim for help more. in that aspect, i'm almost inspired by it for fan-content, but i'm so frustrated by all the little details being off that i don't ever engage with it. which is sad, bc the pitched idea of "Jason and Tim are trapped in a nightmare realm together" sounds SO up my alley. i even saved this comic for last when i read all of Knight Terrors bc i had the highest hopes.
it's strange bc the writer seems newer to DC, and i actually loved the one other thing i read by him, Superboy: Man of Tomorrow. i just don't think his strengths lie in either of these characters, or the horror genre. that said, i have JayTim shipper friends who loved this comic and it deepened their love for JayTim, and they quite enjoyed reading the comic with shipper googles on. so mileage certainly varies, and i am just hypercritical of most Rebirth era comics. to the point i almost think i'm meaner to Rebirth than i am N52... Rebirth is utterly directionless. and even if the direction was usually Bad, the N52 actually had a direction most of the time. it was shockingly consistent with Jason and Tim. but Rebirth lacks that consistency and doesn't seem to know what to do with JayTim. i'll always vastly, vastly prefer Post-Crisis JayTim. my heart goes out to the weird little dynamic they had there. and this comic just. doesn't rlly add up to either era. i think my rating now would probably drop to more of a 3/10 or 4/10 upon rereading it to answer this, but i might just be jaded, lol. ty for the ask, though! i love yapping about them and this was a great excuse to collect all my thoughts on this comic bc boy, i clearly had a lot kjhgjhkj
Hi! I was reading the bonus prompts and I saw D/S but I don't understand what that means? 😓
hi, thank you for reaching out!
D/S is shorthand in the kink community for Dominance/Submission, and refers to the lifestyle, kink dynamics, and power play of those who choose to engage in a dom/sub dynamic, in which one person (the submissive) gives over control to the other (the dominant) within negotiated boundaries.
for the sake of the Kinktober event, you can interpret that however you'd like! it could be characters partaking in a 24/7 dynamic (ie: they are always operating as Dom and Sub and the kink influences their entire life) or it could just be a scene in which one character is "domming" another!
Dead Doves in the Belfry, a dead dove: do not eat themed Batfamily discord server, is hosting our own small DC-themed kinktober event! This event is not meant to replace the main Kinktober event, but is something community-based to have fun with some prompts and create some interesting fanworks! Below are the prompts, and under the cut will be general rules, FAQs, and the prompts in plain text!
all graphics made by @divine-dominion
🦇 Rules 🦇
All ships are allowed, all content of any rating. Ships can include characters from any canon DC property. They can also be Canon/OC, Canon/Reader, etc. Crossovers are allowed, so long as at least one DC character is a main character in the fic!
Prompts can be combined with any other fandom event/October prompt list! The general Kinktober list, Whumptober, Inktober, etc. Go wild!
"Extra Prompts" can be substituted in for any day! If you don't like a certain day's prompt, feel free to use one of the extras!
Submissions can be posted on any platform! The Discord server, Ao3, Tumblr, ff.net, etc. There is an Ao3 collection (linked above), but feel free to post where you like!
There is no minimum limit for creation. Fics can be as short or as long as you want! Any form of fan content is accepted. Fanart, mixed media, etc. AI submissions are not allowed.
Prompts can be interpreted in any way you see fit. Feel free to get creative, there is literally no wrong way to do a kink.
There is no time limit on posting. You can add to the Ao3 collection whenever you'd like, it will remain open!
🦇 FAQ 🦇
- Do I have to join the server to participate?
Not at all! While this is primarily an event for the community in the server, anyone can participate! Feel free to share the prompt list and collection link with anyone you'd like! You're also welcome to join the server as a lurker! The Belfry is a relaxed space, no one is required to be active!
- Can I join the server just for the vibes and not participate?
Of course! The server is active all the time and has plenty of chats not related to this event at all! Feel free to come in and just say hi and hang out!
- Is this event only for the Batfamily/Bat characters?
Nope! This event is open to *any* DC character from *any* property! The server is Batfamily-centric so there's likely to be a skew in that direction, but we welcome any type of DC fan!
- Does the content have to be "dead dove"/darkfic to qualify?
Also no! Many of the prompts encourage darker themes, as the primary focus of the server (and my blog in general) is to provide a space for dead dove and a judgment-free fandom community, if you want to write something fluffy and soft, go right ahead! All content warnings are welcome, including none at all.
- What tag should I use when posting on Tumblr?
I will personally be tracking #kinktober in the belfry 2025 / #kinktoberinthebelfry2025. you can also tag me, necrotic-nephilim! I will try to reblog as many posts as possible!
- Where can I ask for more information?
You're welcome to join the server, or just send an ask to this blog! Since this is a more relaxed event, it doesn't have a dedicated blog, but I'm happy to take any questions you have!
🦇 Prompts in Plaintext 🦇
Mind Control | Breath Play | Voice Kink
Sex Pollen | Uniform Kink | Scent Kink
Super Strength | Masturbation | Watersports
Lasso of Truth | Autassassinophilia | Cockwarming
Fear Toxin | Topping From The Bottom | Edging
Alien Biology | Free Use Kink | Shibari
Speed Force | CNC | Anonymous Sex
Healing Factor | Incest Kink | Voyuerism
Mentor/Sidekick | Body Worship | Wax Play
Uniform/Suit Swap | Findom | Somnophilia
Villain Death Trap | Drugs | Forcemasc/Forcefemme
Batmobile | Human Ashtray | Muzzles
Lantern Rings | Sadism | Object Penetration
Inappropriate Use of Signature Weapons | Tentacles | Piercing
Helena reading list 👀 I was her fan before but i completely abandoned comics some years ago so i need to refresh on some characters
ignore that i'm a month late to this i'm SO sorry anon-
but yes of course! i'm going to split this reading list up in the general categories: essential reading (imo), good additional content if you want a deeper dive, and content that isn't *good* but is helpful for knowing where she is currently in the comics. since the main point is helping people get a grasp of where she's at going into Red Hood (2025) (tho, given GFM has self-admittedly not read these either, i suppose it's all optional) there's some Rebirth stuff that frankly sucks, but does bring you to speed on her current mythos.
before getting into the recs keep in mine firstly, these are all my opinions on what is good reading for her so my list may look different from others who are more comprehensive! and secondly: do *not* read Pre-Crisis or New-52 Huntress content. that is Helena Wayne. so, specifically avoid Huntress: Origins/Huntress: Darknight Daughter and Huntress: Crossbow at the Crossroads (2011). they're a different character. (yes, the DC official website says otherwise about Huntress (2011). it's wrong. ignore it.) frankly, you can just skip right over the New-52 as far as Huntress goes. Helena Bertinelli's only feature is in Grayson (2014) and she's not Huntress, she's Matron and. it's just not good, she's essentially a different person. you can and should skip it.
Essential Reading
Batman/Huntress: Cry For Blood
Huntress: Year One
both of these are only six issues! if you only have the bandwidth to pick up one Huntress comic, read Cry For Blood. it will give you her backstory, help you get to know how she generally interacts with the Batfam, and her ethos as a character. her Year One story is good, the writing just isn't as strong, but it does give more insight to her origins!
Additional Reading
Huntress (1989) - her debut run, and it is fantastic. however most of it's elements pertaining to her backstory are retconned and thus no longer canon bc of Cry For Blood. if you want good Helena stories, i recommend it, but if you just want to know her lore, you can skip this one
Nightwing/Huntress - this is a mini and explores the dynamic between Dick and Helena. some ppl hate this bc it's by Devin Grayson, i personally maintain it's in character and insightful for seeing how Helena feels about Batman
Robin III: Cry of the Huntress - is the writing great? no. is it a fun time to watch Tim and Helena bestieisms? yes. so i support it, personally. just accept she's a lil flat here.
Huntress/Spoiler: Blunt Trauma - only a one-shot, which is tragic but, i loooove how these two interacted! highly recommend it!
Birds of Prey: Manhunt - also a mini, and Helena's first time working with the BoP! the writing isn't great (it's by Dixon. so.) but you get to see Helena clash with Babs, which i find fun
Gail Simone's Birds of Prey - while i'll be honest, i don't personally love Simone's writing of Helena all of the time, this is where Helena is best known and it develops some of her strongest friendships. (Simone's run starts with BoP (1999) #56 and continues onward. there's also Birds of Prey (2010) by Simone as well, which i actually prefer more for Helena but is shorter)
Helena plays big roles in most 90s-00s Batman storylines (Contagion, No Man's Land, Hush, Last Laugh, Gotham Knights, etc) so those are fun if you want her in an ensemble cast, but they won't give you a lot of Helena-focused content. she was also in the JLA for a while but tbh, i was underwhelmed by her content there as well. i do rec both of her Showcase stories though, Showcase '93 #9-#10 and Benedictions (Showcase '94 #5-#6 and Robin #6) and rec those for shorter reads focused on her! you can also read Huntress (1994) if you want, it's only four issues, but it's not great so i don't consider it essential. the art is stunning tho, so it gets small points from me.
Rebirth Reading
Batgirl & the Birds of Prey - i'll be so honest, i haaate this run and i don't know any Helena fan who *likes* it. it attempts to fix New-52 Helena and return her to Huntress, but it makes the worst possible character choices. there is some important lore in a storyline about her mom so, i suppose it's required. but i hate it.
Nightwing Vol 4: Blockbuster & Nightwing Vol 5: Raptor's Revenge - again, a poor attempt at trying to figure out how to make Helena work in Rebirth. frankly, none of her Rebirth content is good. but it's. there, i guess. i would rec this less than B&tBoP personally, but it does tie into her time as Matron in Spyral during the N52'
Detective Comics Vol 1: the Neighborhood & Detective Comics Vol 2: Fear State - aside from her Secret Files issue, Helena feels wildly sidelined by this plot. it's not terrible but given it's built on DC not knowing what to do with her, she just feels like a nothing character to the point it's frankly skippable, i won't lie.
in summary: Batgirl & the Birds of Prey gives the layout for Rebirth Helena and her most recent backstory lore drops, if you want to be up to speed on that. but *truly* the best read is going to be Cry For Blood, followed by imo Huntress (1989). my top five recs that are easy to understand without a plethora of context would personally be Cry For Blood, Huntress (1989), Nightwing/Huntress, Year One, and Blunt Trauma! happy reading!
do u have any advice on how to maintain a more neutral(?) main blog while also running a batcest side blog? i wanna make one but idk. i’m just partially worried that my ‘anti’ friends might somehow be able to track me down 😭😭
hi anon! i think the hardest part about it is just the mental hurdle, and feeling like you're hiding some dirty secret. the more you get paranoid about it the harder it's going to be. which makes just making the blog the hardest part. i felt the same way about making this blog, and i was so paranoid trying to make sure it wasn't something other people could find. but the thing is, people aren't going to be *looking* in the first place, i promise.
of course the general advice is: make the username as different as possible, don't feel like you have to give personal info on the sideblog (or on any blog tbh), go by a different name if you want (shocking I know, my name is not actually Luciferos.), make your likes/following private on your main, but also you don't have to like the posts you reblog to your sideblog to begin with if that's a worry you have. also save to drafts before posting. i have almost accidentally posted to the wrong blog before and I always catch myself by making a draft first fkskdldls
but ultimately I think the bigger question you have to ask yourself is: why do you want to maintain friendships with people who would viciously judge or attack you if they knew you liked certain ships? i understand when they're you're entire friend circle, but i think that's more of a reason to let yourself branch out and make a Batcest Tumblr, bc it will give you the chance to make better friends, honestly. i didn't have great friends when i made this blog, but now I'm surrounded by rlly cool people who don't have warped views on fiction. and i get that some friendships are worth maintaining regardless of their anti views, but it is something to think about if your paranoia is this deep. you deserve friends who uplift your interests, not judge them.
When will you return from war 😔 i love all your analysis, ship posts, fics etc <3333
i am returning I PROMISE. i have so many things to say, i just forget to post them, I won't lie. my drafts are a sad, sad wasteland.
as for fics, i have far less time than I used to which is tragic. i wanted to do summer of Batcest (and I still might, just on my own time!) but it is going by so fast. cruel irony is when what I thought would be my least busy month has been the busiest of all. I'm blaming the universe.
but i will post more, I promise! i love you too anon <3
anyway the most frustrating thing about Gretchen Felker-Martin's upcoming Red Hood run is how it feels next to impossible to express potential concerns over the run without immediately having your take bandwagoned and twisted by people who are running with the most bad faith interpretation possible of every single thing she says or does and refusing to give even a shred of a benefit of the doubt to a comic that, i cannot stress this enough, *is not out yet.*
i recently posted about my tentative excitement for the run and by and large, i do stand by what i said in that post. i still think GFM's novels are great works, i still think Beast World wasn't the worst Jason comic, and i still think the concepts for the run sound interesting. but given her recent interview and some reason bluesky posts, my excitement is certainly more hedged, i won't pretend otherwise. but it's wildly frustrating to see people twist her words in the worst way possible and share out of context screenshots of the interview they clearly haven't even read. how am i supposed to expect this fandom to read her run with an open mind if they can't read an *interview* to form their own opinion? any shred of valid criticism/concern is immediately muddled by misgyony and transphobia and people doing full on acrobatics to make assumptions about GFM and her run. am i concerned she hasn't read any Red Hood comics or Huntress comics? yes. am i concerned her frame of reference for Helena seems to be that god awful Birds of Prey movie? yes. and am i concerned that she doesn't seem to understand the root of either of these characters? also yes.
but given the fact these two characters literally cannot get any worse? i don't know what you think GFM is going to do, exactly. Jason and Helena have both been at rock bottom for characterization for literal decades. and i can't help but feel male/cishet writers don't get half of this heat for their garbage takes on these characters that set them so far back in the first place. GFM's run might be great, it might be garbage, but it's likely not going to be able to return either of these characters to their "peak era" that fans worship, which atp, was nearly 20 years ago, which seems to be the only thing fans of either character want in order to be appeased and not rip GFM to shreds.
i just can't help but feel like this fandom is setting GFM up to be this generation's Devin Grayson. ie: the queer woman who is their lamb to slaughter to lay every bad writing/character choice for the next ten years onto, regardless of her control and/or involvement of the choices. with the even deeper irony being that Devin Grayson's mythical Nightwing run was *actually good*, most people just either didn't read it, or read only the notorious highlights in incredibly bad faith. it seems like GFM has no room for mediocrity here. unless her run is literally perfection, you're all going to rip her to shreds for it and jump at the bit to be transphobic/misogynistic in ways that aren't even subtle.
