Lorendiac
04-05-2005, 08:01 PM
I just wrote this earlier today in response to a thread on DC's own boards where someone was asking politely, "Why do people hate Jason?" His basic point was that although he's read lots and lots of TPB collections relating to Batman, he only really got interested a few years ago, and he doesn't understand why the return of Jason Todd is getting such a venomous response from many old-timers. He's willing to listen to their point of view, however, if they can explain it with good solid reasons. I admire that open-minded attitude on his part.
Here's what I said in response:
I don't think I hate Jason. I hate the fact that he's being brought back, but that's not the same thing.
However . . . although I haven't read them in years, I have copies of the issues of Batman that had lettercols published shortly after "A Death in the Family" in reaction to the death of Jason Todd, and I remember one letter fairly well. The writer of the letter correctly pointed out that there had really been several different Jason Todds to like, dislike, or feel neutral about. Because of course, each writer who had dealt with the character in any detail in "Batman" or "Detective Comics" or "The New Teen Titans" or whatever had his own take on the subject of just what Jason Todd was all about and what differences (if any) there were between him as Robin and Dick Grayson as Robin at the same age, pre- or post-Crisis.
So we had the Doug Moench Jason Todd, the Marv Wolfman Jason Todd, the Max Allan Collins Jason Todd, the Mike Barr Jason Todd, and the Jim Starlin Jason Todd. The author of the letter provided capsule summaries of what he saw as the basic personalities of "each different Jason Todd" and how he had felt about it when reading the relevant issues by each writer.
I can't remember every detail of what he said, but I believe his fundamental point probably was that different fans were probably clapping and cheering, or sobbing and screaming, or shrugging because they really didn't care much one way or the other, depending upon which Jason Todd they had read the most about and/or had developed the strongest opinions about.
This suggests - though the letter-writer may not have said this - that it would be almost impossible for these people to talk to each other meaningfully, because their reasons for thinking Jason Todd deserved much better, or deserved what he got, would be based on different evidence from different stories by different writers.
At the time I first read that comment (back around 1989?), I was most familiar with the pre-Crisis mid-80s Jason Todd/Robin written by Doug Moench, and had only read a couple of stories about the post-Crisis Jason as written by Starlin or Collins. I had not read "A Death in the Family" yet. I had not heard about the time the Jim Starlin Jason Todd might have killed a rapist who had diplomatic immunity. I knew practically nothing about the Wolfman or Barr versions of Jason Todd, for that matter. Since then, I've caught up on my reading of back issues from the late 80s about Jason Todd. And I've really come to appreciate that letter-writer's point.
I think the point is still valid, only it's going to be a lot worse now, 17 years or so after Jason Todd died. Because there's going to be some modern readers who have seen very little (if anything) of the Jason Todd stories of the 1980s by various writers, and thus won't understand what all the fuss is about anyway. They've probably already picked up on the idea that there used to be a Robin named Jason Todd, but except for occasional flashback scenes or whatever, they don't really "know" who Jason Todd "really was" as a distinct character; they just know that in modern continuity he's been the corpse whose memory allegedly still has Batman in such a bad mood, since forever!
Since they never "experienced" the old stories about Jason Todd, what do they care if those stories are now being retconned or made irrelevant or whatever? All they really need to care about is whether or not the New Stories about him will have any entertainment value "here and now." Whatever was done with him in the 1980s, pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, by Collins, by Barr, by whoever, is just dusty old "ancient history" that has no relevance to their buying habits today, right?
Then, among readers who have read a lot of the old Bat-stories from the 1980s and who do think they "know" who Jason Todd "really was," we're going to have further problems and disagreements based on whatever attitudes they have developed about Jason over the years. Some readers will think Starlin treated him unfairly but the best thing to do is to let sleeping dogs lie, others will think Starlin gave him exactly what he deserved, other readers will be saying, "After all these years, can't we just forget about the incredibly badly-written stories Starlin cranked out about him, and give him a fresh chance as an older, changed character, in stories written by people who might have a bold new take on him and be able to make him more interesting, whatever he does with his life from now on?" Meanwhile, other people will be saying, "I don't really care if Starlin's stories about him were good or bad - he's been dead for so long that his memory is a keystone in modern Batman continuity, and it ought to be left that way, even if I may have felt in 1988 that killing him that was a horrible idea! After all this time, his 'proper place' in continuity is in the grave!"
And so on and so forth, with many other variations in points of view, emotional involvement on the issue, degrees of knowledge (or of ignorance) regarding just how this all started, and further arguments regarding whether or not the results of a telephone poll in the 1980s ought to mean anything at all in the 21st Century.
Heck, if it hasn't already happened, someone will probably start up a club about this. They could give it some nifty acronym such as K.O.J.A.K., meaning they are the Kill Off Jason Again Krewe! Or some such thing
Here's what I said in response:
I don't think I hate Jason. I hate the fact that he's being brought back, but that's not the same thing.
However . . . although I haven't read them in years, I have copies of the issues of Batman that had lettercols published shortly after "A Death in the Family" in reaction to the death of Jason Todd, and I remember one letter fairly well. The writer of the letter correctly pointed out that there had really been several different Jason Todds to like, dislike, or feel neutral about. Because of course, each writer who had dealt with the character in any detail in "Batman" or "Detective Comics" or "The New Teen Titans" or whatever had his own take on the subject of just what Jason Todd was all about and what differences (if any) there were between him as Robin and Dick Grayson as Robin at the same age, pre- or post-Crisis.
So we had the Doug Moench Jason Todd, the Marv Wolfman Jason Todd, the Max Allan Collins Jason Todd, the Mike Barr Jason Todd, and the Jim Starlin Jason Todd. The author of the letter provided capsule summaries of what he saw as the basic personalities of "each different Jason Todd" and how he had felt about it when reading the relevant issues by each writer.
I can't remember every detail of what he said, but I believe his fundamental point probably was that different fans were probably clapping and cheering, or sobbing and screaming, or shrugging because they really didn't care much one way or the other, depending upon which Jason Todd they had read the most about and/or had developed the strongest opinions about.
This suggests - though the letter-writer may not have said this - that it would be almost impossible for these people to talk to each other meaningfully, because their reasons for thinking Jason Todd deserved much better, or deserved what he got, would be based on different evidence from different stories by different writers.
At the time I first read that comment (back around 1989?), I was most familiar with the pre-Crisis mid-80s Jason Todd/Robin written by Doug Moench, and had only read a couple of stories about the post-Crisis Jason as written by Starlin or Collins. I had not read "A Death in the Family" yet. I had not heard about the time the Jim Starlin Jason Todd might have killed a rapist who had diplomatic immunity. I knew practically nothing about the Wolfman or Barr versions of Jason Todd, for that matter. Since then, I've caught up on my reading of back issues from the late 80s about Jason Todd. And I've really come to appreciate that letter-writer's point.
I think the point is still valid, only it's going to be a lot worse now, 17 years or so after Jason Todd died. Because there's going to be some modern readers who have seen very little (if anything) of the Jason Todd stories of the 1980s by various writers, and thus won't understand what all the fuss is about anyway. They've probably already picked up on the idea that there used to be a Robin named Jason Todd, but except for occasional flashback scenes or whatever, they don't really "know" who Jason Todd "really was" as a distinct character; they just know that in modern continuity he's been the corpse whose memory allegedly still has Batman in such a bad mood, since forever!
Since they never "experienced" the old stories about Jason Todd, what do they care if those stories are now being retconned or made irrelevant or whatever? All they really need to care about is whether or not the New Stories about him will have any entertainment value "here and now." Whatever was done with him in the 1980s, pre-Crisis, post-Crisis, by Collins, by Barr, by whoever, is just dusty old "ancient history" that has no relevance to their buying habits today, right?
Then, among readers who have read a lot of the old Bat-stories from the 1980s and who do think they "know" who Jason Todd "really was," we're going to have further problems and disagreements based on whatever attitudes they have developed about Jason over the years. Some readers will think Starlin treated him unfairly but the best thing to do is to let sleeping dogs lie, others will think Starlin gave him exactly what he deserved, other readers will be saying, "After all these years, can't we just forget about the incredibly badly-written stories Starlin cranked out about him, and give him a fresh chance as an older, changed character, in stories written by people who might have a bold new take on him and be able to make him more interesting, whatever he does with his life from now on?" Meanwhile, other people will be saying, "I don't really care if Starlin's stories about him were good or bad - he's been dead for so long that his memory is a keystone in modern Batman continuity, and it ought to be left that way, even if I may have felt in 1988 that killing him that was a horrible idea! After all this time, his 'proper place' in continuity is in the grave!"
And so on and so forth, with many other variations in points of view, emotional involvement on the issue, degrees of knowledge (or of ignorance) regarding just how this all started, and further arguments regarding whether or not the results of a telephone poll in the 1980s ought to mean anything at all in the 21st Century.
Heck, if it hasn't already happened, someone will probably start up a club about this. They could give it some nifty acronym such as K.O.J.A.K., meaning they are the Kill Off Jason Again Krewe! Or some such thing