Rosehen96 - Random Things

why aren't you an avengers hater?

Hi anon!

I do like the Avengers; specifically, the version I got to know in the initial few comics, & their development until the 70s & 80s, and hell, i even appreciate some of what was going on in the 90s. part of this is because i simply have to; most of my favourite characters are majorly affiliated with the avengers, like scarlet witch, the vision, hank pym, wonder man, wasp, hercules etc, so if i didn't like them or didn't learn to appreciate them i'd probably struggle. you'd be hard pressed to find a hardcore fan of wanda, for example, and not have them at the very least tolerate the team, otherwise you'd be missing out on the crucial moments of her development, and this goes for other characters.

so why do i like them specifically? i guess because they offer an interesting place in marvel, in that their dynamics are... weird. like, the x-men have a very clear common cause in that they're all mutants & none of them want to get, you know, murdered, and simultaneously (in the leekirby era) want to keep mutant extremeists contained so they don't take their anger out on a defenceless human innocent. the fantastic four, while heroes, don't have that as their primary job; they're a family of explorers. the avengers are different in that they neither have a common thread really connecting them, except for the fact that they all in some way want to help other people, and recognise that this would be easier achieved with other people supporting them.

there's less strings attached, at least initially. they're a group of weird misfits that have a common cause, but a lot of the time, really find each other intolerable because they all have conflicting personalities & ways of heroing. this is different from the x-men of the era, because they all have broadly similar ways due to being taught by xavier. the fantastic four, while conflicting, balance each other out because of their defined archetypes. the avengers try to do this, but there are complications that make them interesting, and part of the intrigue for me is reading & watching how different writers grapple with trying to have different archetypes met by changing around different aspects. they are a team constantly reshuffling & remodelling, which is sort of frustrating today when a new team means a new volume, but is funner to read for me personally when things just continued as they were.

examples; when thor leaves the team, hank & janet return to the team, and hank becomes permanently stuck at 10 feet tall, because the team needed a new muscular character to act as the tank. around the time when hercules joins the team, hank becomes able to be normal sized again. we see this again when clint barton becomes goliath for some reason; the team needs a tank. janet, intitally a fun-loving, flirty character, matures as writers begin to focus on her marital problems with hank, and so beast arrives and takes on that roll. when he leaves, its not long until starfox joins the team, and similarly plays the role of flirty hedonist that beast did. this continues on & on, and its an interesting source of conflict for me between writer & team. in some ways, they're more free to reinvent & introduce characters more than the fantastic four or x-men of the same era. in other ways, they're more restricted by the very clear rules set up in what makes a superhero team work & what archetypes you need.

this is very well shown in hank pym; writers would constantly change him, his powers & identities, to justify him being there when more powerful characters inevitably came along to do what he did better, because he was only a regular human being. but they kept him around because he was psychologically interesting, which obviously resulted in the trail of yellowjacket arc. an innocuous change to make him seem more interesting had such a strange knock on effect and its interesting!

yes, you get that in other comics, but because they're not as tied together as the ff or the x-men, writers constantly have to justify why is the character there. what are they contributing. for wanda & pietro, it's because they represent a potential safe space, a way to realise their heroism that didn't exactly get much light with magneto, an opportunity to discover their potential. for janet, it's initially a way to get away from the mundanity of being a wealthy heiress, because she's developed a taste for the adrenaline of superheroics with hank, and as she grows it is because she feels a genuine responsibility for others & knows she can make more radical change there than she would as a fashion designer. for t'challa, it's initially because he wants to protect his home from them, and then because they're facing a lot of threats that could harm wakanda, and does develop a genuine appreciation & closeness for the team but his nation always comes first. and so on.

i realise i've gone on a bit and to be honest i don't think i articulated myself well, but those are the reasons i come to; they offer a clearly defined other purpose in the 616 universe, they serve interesting dilemmas for characters in a way that very naturally comes, at least in the 60s thru 80s, while for other teams like the ff it could sometimes feel a bit forced.

now, this isn't to say there aren't flaws, and i'll try to be brief when i say these; they are the team worst impacted by 9/11 and the changes it had on american politics. the change from a mostly indepentant team that actively rebelled against the government & agents put in charge of them to essentially a government puppet hurt them so much. the avengers are supposed to actively fight corruption; vision, beast, and i'm pretty sure sam wilson all try to deck gyrich in the face at least once, but after 9/11 they all listen & argue his arguments.

the change from one or two main titles to multiple also hurts the team. it makes sense; there's so many avengers characters, but having so many has made contemporary writers lose sight of what makes the avengers the avengers. what makes them matter, what makes them work. the first main reshuffle of the team brought three different villains into the team to become heroes. they shouldn't be attacking & arresting superpowered people at random, who've committed very mild crimes. they offer a place for redemption, and that has gotten lost in recent times.

anyway, sorry for rambling, but tldr; avengers mostly good, their characterisation post 9/11 is deeply unfair & needs to be actively looked at by writers if they want to move past it, and i think that most comic readers, especially a certain facet of x-men fans, should read through their earlier stuff to avoid making generalisations mostly based off contemporary event comics, because that isn't the avengers i am thinking of when i talk about them, & i think people should know those avengers before making overarcing statements abt how they're all cops or something lol

Megatron made the stunticons mostly by himself and they all desperatley need therapists from the momeent they are activated.

The autobots worked together to make the aerialbots and only ended up with only ONE of the planes being afraid of heights.

I think people need to understand that when someone says the situation in Israel/Palestine is complicated they are not necessarily saying that the discussion of who the oppressor vs oppressed is complicated. The Israeli government has been oppressing the Palestinians for a very long time, that is clear, and it is not complicated to understand that at least since the 80s they have had dramatically more financial and military power to keep control of the territory in the way they like.

However, it is reductive and dismissive to insist that there is no complexity in the potential ways to move forward to bring peace to the region. Despite what people on tumblr.edu like to believe, "Israel should never have been created" is not a practical solution to an incredibly heated geopolitical situation in the present day. Israel was created and it does exist. 10 million people live there. 74% of the population is native born and the country has existed for 75 years. Hand waving these fact away with the opinion that "they should move back to where they came from" may make you feel good about being a Radical Leftist, but it does not give anyone a road map for how exactly millions of people without dual citizenship are supposed to just up and evaporate. Nor does it acknowledge the reality that 21% of Israelis are Arabs, the very people you are claiming to want to give the land back to.

Insisting that there's nothing complicated about expecting an entire country's population to willingly dissappear with no consequences is not a productive way to think about this conflict. It ignores the many massive superpowers that have an interest in proping up different states in the region, the power dynamics involved in any land back movements, and the inevitably negative consequences of totally dissolving an established state without a plan. It is also completely and almost comically unrealistic, so much so that it makes it hard to believe that anyone who's opinion starts and ends with this idea really gives a shit about anyone who lives in the area as much as they care about their online leftist clout.

There's nothing complicated in understanding that the Israeli government is and has been maintaining an oppressive apartheid state for decades. It is, however, very complicated to come up with a realistic way to resolve some of the most intricately entangled land disputes on the planet without plunging the region into total chaos. Not everyone has to be deeply educated on every geopolitical situation, but it is very hard to take people seriously when they know nothing about the politics or history of a region and yet insist that there is nothing complicated about it at all.

There's a lot of people on this website who are getting dangerously smug about their own ignorance, and are starting to go down Qanon type anti-intellectual paths in the name of being sufficiently radical. Not knowing the details of a very convoluted land dispute isn't something to brag about online as you call for intentionally reductive solutions. You can support the Palestinian cause and be aware of the oppression they have faced while also holding off on calling people trying to do real analysis and de-escalation work bootlickers. We need to get control of the urge to fit every global issue into a simplistic YA novel narrative structure that appeals to Western revolutionary fantasies.

How to Finish

I drew this poster for Jon Acuff and his FINISH book tour. Big thanks to Jon for this collaboration, his book has some great ideas about how to complete creative and life goals.

ppl seem to do this thing in fandoms where theyll take a character whos inherently kind and trusting of people and then they make the fanon version of them ignorant or innocent to certain things by default and i dont like it

Read your post about the black-and-white nature of the show and I see your point, however, I personally would really like to see how they handled the idea of redemption for characters like Adam and Val. Or at the very least, how Charlie engaged with them in a way that encouraged better behaviors. I think the biggest hurdle to any redemption is that not everyone wants it, you have to convince them or let them get there on their own... but (and I think this is personal based on your own morals/culture) I strongly believe anyone is capable of it. Luckily this is taking place in the afterlife, so people have truly unlimited time to self reflect and get to a point of wanting change.

That being said, I think characters with much graver crimes (Adam and Val) make for a far more interesting story within this topic. Due to the nature of what they've done, they require you to really dive into who they are as people, what their past is (what is informing their decision-making), and, importantly, what "improvement" means for them. I think you can still do this with the current cast too (Angel and Sir Pentious) but we never see it, which is frustrating.

How am I supposed to buy into Sir Pentious' redemption when we have no idea what he did in life to end up in Hell? Angel was a mobster... and yet all he has to do to "redeem" himself is stop taking drugs? What about his victims?

I think redemption should be complex, have many ups and downs, and needs to focus on not just the individual (how they got there) but their victims too (especially their victims, actually). And if the goal isn't redemption, it can still be "improvement" with a focus on getting a person to truly reconcile with the impact of their actions and how they can make better choices in the future.

All that said, it is clear to me (sadly) this show does not want to focus on these topics and dissect them in an interesting way. It teases them, which gets a person like me excited (I love the thought exercise because I do absolutely believe there is good in everyone, that is just my own deeply held belief), but then we get such a lukewarm portrayal of it that barely scratches the surface. Would have really enjoyed seeing the show double down on "yes, everyone can be a target for redemption" and then actually explore the impact of that and how Charlie's little summer camp exercises aren't going to cut it.

It's pretty sad how shallow Hazbin's themes feel when there is so much interesting potential to explore from it. But the show never bothers exploring that potential and chooses the most shallow, surface-level execution of it. Charlie trying to redeem Val and Adam could actually be interesting....but Viv doesn't want to give them any more personality or depth beyond them just being one-dimensional assholes so, ya.

Hazbin's themes feel hollow for many reasons I previously talked about but this is the biggest one; the show barely actually explores them, it only touches the surface and nothing else. In a show all about redemption, it's super funny that most of it isn't even dedicated to redeeming sinners at all.

It's just a shame because Hazbin's message is interesting and sweet, but it never bothers deconstructing that message or exploring what redemption truly means. It only explores the surface-level stuff which makes it feel incredibly hollow.

“some people don’t deserve redemption” redemption isn’t something that’s deserved, it’s something someone does. it’s making the choice to change the way you live your life, to be better, to do good things instead of bad things and try to make up for the bad things. and everyone can and should do that, at any time, no matter what they’ve done. we can’t change the past, but we can choose what kind of person to be now and in the future. we have the responsibility to do so. it is so completely not about “deserving.”

Hi! I’m really sick of whitewashing and the various excuses that artists come up with, so I wrote a guide! How To Not Whitewash, at least with regards to skin tone. Please make use of it, and encourage other artists to do so as well. Here’s a link to this guide on a Google Doc - this document has image descriptions. Feel free to contact me if the link stops working, or if you have questions (in good faith).

Distant Utopia - from ひきだしにテラリウム (Terrarium in a Drawer) by Ryoko Kui

now that Dungeon Meshi has an official English translation, i hope someday Kui’s other work will get translated too. this anthology was really good, and this story was one of my favorites