Ask Twi Anything

[Quiver he/him]

Oh gosh! Kingdom Come!

(The artwork is so pretty...)

 

Anyway... what do you think of Kingdom Come, specifically the morality of it?After all, while I certainly agree that killing is wrong... Superman doesn't really offer any counter-solutions to the eX-Treme villains of the day, and it is hard to feel bad about something happening to the Joker. Do you think that undermines the morals of the story, or enhances them, by demonstrating that you can't cherry pick when to kill and when not to?

[+Slowswift]

Will you play the Fandom Game? [/shameless plug]

Edited July 7, 2015 by Slowswift

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

Spyro is a fun game tho not as fun as crash bandicoot IMO XD and I agree at having more fun gaming in youth than now

If you got give free trip for week in London, where would you go?

 

Um, everywhere I could? I'm not terribly familiar with London, save for all the touristy things every single movie shows, so I'd just see whatever I could. I'd check out all of those touristy sights, but I'd probably also spend a day or two just exploring. I think you learn the most and see the most that way. 

 

Oh gosh! Kingdom Come!

(The artwork is so pretty...)

 

Anyway... what do you think of Kingdom Come, specifically the morality of it?After all, while I certainly agree that killing is wrong... Superman doesn't really offer any counter-solutions to the eX-Treme villains of the day, and it is hard to feel bad about something happening to the Joker. Do you think that undermines the morals of the story, or enhances them, by demonstrating that you can't cherry pick when to kill and when not to?

 

I geek out a bit every time I look at it.  

 

I believe the morality of Kingdom Come is as complex and murky as its purpose required. The story behind the story—and what spurred me to read it in the first place—is that the comic was written as a deconstruction of Dark Age antiheroes and a reconstruction of Silver Age heroes. According to TVTropes, deconstructions and reconstructions serve similar yet opposing purposes. A deconstruction takes the original apart to demonstrate everything that doesn't really work about it; a reconstruction acknowledges the points made in the deconstruction to put the original back together and make it stronger than it was before. 

 

Dark Age antiheroes began with comics like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns—harsh deconstructions of Silver Age heroes and the morality they upheld. Those stories created new superheroes or stripped old ones of all the pomp and glitter they'd worn for decades and presented them to the audience as neurotic, murderous, hypocritical psychopaths. It's uncomfortable to read, partly because Miller and Moore make some excellent points. For Batman to function as he did in the Silver Age, he could not have been a kind man in real life. For Doctor Manhattan to take on godlike power and learn to use it, he would have had to abandon essential components of his humanity. I believe those deconstructions were not only landmarks in the history of comics and superheroes, but essential to both. 

 

Of course, there were two enormous problems with Watchmen: The Comedian and Rorschach. Moore intended them to be symbols of everything he despised, but some fans….wound up….liking them. I dated a man who not only named Rorschach as his favorite superhero, but unashamedly identified with him and even dressed like him. (Notice that we're not dating anymore. It's not that I have a problem with men who wear trench coats or dusters, because I actually find them attractive; it's more that Rorschach is…well, if you've read the comic, or even the TVTropes page, you know what I'm talking about.) Entirely against his intentions, those two kicked off the Dark Age of comics, characterized by "heroes" who carried big guns, talked tough, and often had no problem with killing. 

 

This brings us to Kingdom Come. With that comic, Waid and Ross intended to take apart the Dark Age and put the Silver Age back together—in other words, to show all the problems with Dark Age antiheroes and make Silver Age heroes viable again. To do this, he had to make the two work together in a story. To take down a man like Magog, who wouldn't turn back from killing until he'd accidentally murdered millions, Superman had to be angry. He had to be violent. Magog and other antiheroes of his ilk couldn't be stopped by the Big Blue Boy Scout; they could only be stopped by an avenging angel who would threaten murder of UN representatives who did something he deemed unconscionable. 

 

In that respect, I think Superman's actions enhance the morals of the story. I read the moral as "Dark Age antiheroes don't work, they never worked, and we cannot continue holding them up as our role models without heading for disaster." In Kingdom Come, we are given that world, and it is a bleak world indeed. It is a world where not only have "heroes" killed all the villains and turned on one another out of sheer boredom, but a world that can only be put to rights by driving Superman—the most hopeful hero DC Comics has to offer—into a despairing rage. 

 

On a similar note, I do think Magog's actions bring up a point Silver Age—and many current Modern Age—heroes refuse to acknowledge: Sometimes, mercy does more harm than good. Killing the Joker rid the world of a menace who had made a career out of escaping from prison to terrorize the populace. However, his actions gave the world's antiheroes permission to kill indiscriminately, which led the world toward disaster. I believe the intended message in the Joker's death was that mercy toward unrepentant killers does cause problems, but are we prepared for the consequences of declaring open season on them? In having Magog kill the Joker, I sensed Waid was advocating a middle path between the two extremes of always killing and never killing. He didn't tell us what that middle path was, but I believe he intended to get audiences thinking about what that middle path could look like. 

[Kobold King he/him]

If you were given a time machine, what time period would you visit first and why?

 

 

 

If by some wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey circumstance you learned that you will have a daughter destined to lead humanity to victory against the invading Empire of the Tainted Blood, would that knowledge impact the way you live your life at all?

Edited July 8, 2015 by Kobold King

[Orlion Blight he/him]

 

On a similar note, I do think Magog's actions bring up a point Silver Age—and many current Modern Age—heroes refuse to acknowledge: Sometimes, mercy does more harm than good. Killing the Joker rid the world of a menace who had made a career out of escaping from prison to terrorize the populace. However, his actions gave the world's antiheroes permission to kill indiscriminately, which led the world toward disaster. I believe the intended message in the Joker's death was that mercy toward unrepentant killers does cause problems, but are we prepared for the consequences of declaring open season on them? In having Magog kill the Joker, I sensed Waid was advocating a middle path between the two extremes of always killing and never killing. He didn't tell us what that middle path was, but I believe he intended to get audiences thinking about what that middle path could look like. 

 

That's the thing, though: "With great power comes great responsibility". The Joker should have been killed a loooong time ago, it was Batman's responsibility, but he shirked it. He kept him alive so "the Joker wouldn't win" or "I'm not going to sink to his level" or "If I start killing, it'll be like Lay's potato chips and I won't stop at one!" Responsibility is hard, but that does not mean you are not responsible for the deaths that follow when you repeatedly let the unrepentant, slippery psychopath that always escapes and always kills more people live. 

 

Discussion cap off, I liked the scene in Kingdom Come where Magog is devastated at the destruction he could not prevent. 

[Kaymyth she/her]

That's the thing, though: "With great power comes great responsibility". The Joker should have been killed a loooong time ago, it was Batman's responsibility, but he shirked it. He kept him alive so "the Joker wouldn't win" or "I'm not going to sink to his level" or "If I start killing, it'll be like Lay's potato chips and I won't stop at one!" Responsibility is hard, but that does not mean you are not responsible for the deaths that follow when you repeatedly let the unrepentant, slippery psychopath that always escapes and always kills more people live. 

 

Discussion cap off, I liked the scene in Kingdom Come where Magog is devastated at the destruction he could not prevent. 

 

Oh, man.  I cannot tell you how many times I have yelled at a protagonist, "Stop trying to be the Good Guy and shoot the villain already! If you let them go now, you KNOW the destruction they will wreak! Put on your big girl panties and DO IT."  The latest was Jupiter Rising.  Seriously, Jupiter, Creepy McCreeperson basically just told you that no matter what, someday he's going to harvest your entire planet.  Making them safe now does nothing in the long run (assuming he's telling the truth), because someday your children or grandchildren or something are all going to die along with billions upon billions of innocent people at his order.  Just. shoot. him. in. the. head.

 

The Protagonist Is Too Good For This World And The Villian Knows It.  I hate that trope. 

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

That's the thing, though: "With great power comes great responsibility". The Joker should have been killed a loooong time ago, it was Batman's responsibility, but he shirked it. He kept him alive so "the Joker wouldn't win" or "I'm not going to sink to his level" or "If I start killing, it'll be like Lay's potato chips and I won't stop at one!" Responsibility is hard, but that does not mean you are not responsible for the deaths that follow when you repeatedly let the unrepentant, slippery psychopath that always escapes and always kills more people live. 

 

Discussion cap off, I liked the scene in Kingdom Come where Magog is devastated at the destruction he could not prevent. 

Oh, man.  I cannot tell you how many times I have yelled at a protagonist, "Stop trying to be the Good Guy and shoot the villain already! If you let them go now, you KNOW the destruction they will wreak! Put on your big girl panties and DO IT."  The latest was Jupiter Rising.  Seriously, Jupiter, Creepy McCreeperson basically just told you that no matter what, someday he's going to harvest your entire planet.  Making them safe now does nothing in the long run (assuming he's telling the truth), because someday your children or grandchildren or something are all going to die along with billions upon billions of innocent people at his order.  Just. shoot. him. in. the. head.

 

The Protagonist Is Too Good For This World And The Villian Knows It.  I hate that trope. 

 

This has always really bugged me about comic book universes. Villains' motives, when revealed to the reader, are often "for the evulz" or "for some petty revenge scheme." There are exceptions, like Mister Freeze, who only wanted to revive his wife, but someone like the Joker is going to offend again the day after he is released or escapes, and when that happens, people are going to die.

 

I know why they don't kill off big-name villains like the Joker. It's because readers recognize him, they like reading about him, and he's a darned good idea and writers don't just come up with those every day, you know. (Unless you're Brandon Sanderson, but I doubt he'll write for DC or Marvel anytime soon. ) But by adding Joker Immunity to a universe that has been taking itself increasingly seriously over the past thirty or so years, writers inadvertently create a universe where heroes put their own discomfort over public safety. Batman won't kill the Joker because he doesn't trust himself not to keep killing—but no one else is going to kill him, either, so he has effectively doomed Gotham to a new reign of terror every time the Joker escapes from Arkham. (So, basically once a week.) 

 

I didn't see Jupiter Ascending (though the Honest Trailer almost made me want to for sheer hilarity) but I think the last example of the Heroes Don't Kill™ morality trope that really made me scream at the characters was on Once Upon a Time. Now, I get why everyone was upset that Snow tricked Regina into killing Cora. That's pretty dark. But in later episodes, people in Storybrooke seemed more upset that Snow had gotten Cora killed at all. They were so scandalized that Snow, a Hero™, would kill another human being that they wound up driving her into even deeper depression. 

 

What they apparently forgot was that Cora was basically an unrepentant serial killer. I get the whole "magic mind control" aspect of stealing peoples' hearts, but the magical aspect does not change the facts that

 

• cardiomancy deprives human beings of their free will
• at least in the case of the Huntsman, it has caused serious apathy and possibly other emotional problems 
• the act of ripping a heart out causes the victim intense pain 
•  she keeps them in drawers in her closet, which is serious serial killer behavior

 

For Regina, the case can be made that she wanted to reform for some time, and eventually did. Not so with Cora. She was unrepentant to the end, making it clear that the only way to ensure the safety of Storybrooke was to kill her. And when she's finally killed, the inhabitants don't even consider the bigger picture. They just rub Snow's face in the fact that she was a Hero™ and she killed someone.

 

 

If you were given a time machine, what time period would you visit first and why?

 

 

 

If by some wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey circumstance you learned that you will have a daughter destined to lead humanity to victory against the invading Empire of the Tainted Blood, would that knowledge impact the way you live your life at all?

 

WWII, so I can do some firsthand research.  

 

Then I'd visit America a hundred years, then fifty, then twenty, then two, years before Columbus. Archaeology has unearthed some fascinating, turn-previous-theories-on-their-heads-and-laugh-at-them evidence of seriously advanced pre-Columbian societies, but we have so little to go on it's tragic. (Please don't get me started on why we have so little to go on; it's late and I'd rather not start up a rant against the conquistadors right now. ) I would use my time machine to take some serious notes on those societies and so preserve their existence for future generations. 

 

 

 

You know, probably not. 

 

I'd strive to live a good life, and to do everything I could to make the world a better place, but I think the only thing that knowledge would change is that I'd take the idea of my getting married someday more seriously—treat it as a "when" rather than an "if." If I knew my descendant would save humanity (or, you know, help it along in a big way), and I was given no instruction along with that tidbit, I would assume that my life ought to follow the trajectory it would have followed had I never received that knowledge. So I'd live a good life, but I wouldn't stress it too much. 

[Quiver he/him]

The Big Two want Brandon Sanderson to write comics for them.

 

Which company does he go to work for, and what series does he write?

 

Note: it must be an already existing property owened by Marvel or DC.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

Will you play the Fandom Game? [/shameless plug]

 

I don't know some of the fandoms involved, so I don't know how helpful I'd be.  

 

The Big Two want Brandon Sanderson to write comics for them.

 

Which company does he go to work for, and what series does he write?

 

Note: it must be an already existing property owened by Marvel or DC.

 

Working for DC, Brandon Sanderson writes for Superman. 

 

With Steelheart, Sanderson gave us Superman as he could be: a godlike being, twisted and corrupted into a nigh-undefeatable tyrant who hires tyrants for his government and kills without remorse. For Superman, Sanderson takes the opposite approach to Snyder's, giving us the hopeful, benevolent Superman we want. 

 

But he doesn't stop there. Harkening back to the early days, Sanderson provides physics-compliant explanations for Superman's powers where he can, and makes the rest into innate abilities possessed by all Kryptonians. Rather than rebooting Superman's story from the beginning, he tells the story of how Superman goes about his daily life, how he blends into the populace and his motives for doing so rather than setting himself up as a god. I don't know what the conflict would be in this story; I do know that it would provide the twists Sanderson is famous for. And into this story, he would weave flashbacks to Jor-El and Lara on Krypton, giving us insights into Kryptonian culture, society, and traditions; these would be presented in alternating chapters with flashbacks to Clark Kent's early days in Kansas, comparing and contrasting these two ways of life and making us wonder what Superman would be like had he grown up as Kal-El rather than Clark Kent. 

 

In short, Brandon Sanderson would write one of the best, if not the best, portrayals of Superman since the great writers of the past. Snyder would be unable to adapt this story without changing his approach entirely. 

[Edgedancer he/him]

What do you thing would a cross over between Brandon's Superman and a Batman written by an author of your favour (even Brandon a second time ) look like?

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

What do you thing would a cross over between Brandon's Superman and a Batman written by an author of your favour (even Brandon a second time ) look like?

Having read most of Dan Wells' I Am Not a Serial Killer, I think Wells would be best suited to writing Batman. He wouldn't shy away from Bruce Wayne's darker side or the consequences of his neuroses on his daily life, but he would still keep the Dark Knight sympathetic.

There is only one word for a crossover of that magnitude: Awesome.

Writing for the Man of Steel, Sanderson would show us a god who chooses to be human, yet protects those he has come to love. Writing for the Dark Knight, Wells would show us a broken man who shares more in common with the criminals he fights than the god he allies with, yet chooses to fight his darker impulses all the same. Rather than fighting for the sake of pointless drama, Batman and Superman would work together, their authors drawing parallels and sharp contrasts between them, giving us the definitive look at both heroes in a story that would make Snyder fall to his knees and cry "I'm not worthy!"

Edited July 9, 2015 by TwiLyghtSansSparkles

[Quiver he/him]

Okay, so Sanderson on Superman, Wells on Batman. Who, in your dream universe, writes Wonder Woman?

 

And, since I've started watching the show... any crazy Gravity Fall's theories?

[Kobold King he/him]

 ...giving us the definitive look at both heroes in a story that would make Snyder fall to his knees and cry "I'm not worthy!"

 

I thought he already did that whenever he sees a Kindergartener draw Superman with a sheet of paper and crayon.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

Okay, so Sanderson on Superman, Wells on Batman. Who, in your dream universe, writes Wonder Woman?

And, since I've started watching the show... any crazy Gravity Fall's theories?

I think the ideal writer for Wonder Woman should be female, not because I think a male writer would automatically objectify her--Sanderson comes to mind as a male author who would treat her with the respect she deserves--but because she is so quintessentially female that I believe a woman would simply have keener insight into her past and her motivations.

As for the ideal author, I would choose Barbara Kingsolver.

She usually writes realistic fiction, but I see no reason why she would be unable to tell a Wonder Woman story. The first book of hers I read, The Bean Trees, tells the story of a young woman who flees her small Southern town and the dead-end life it seems to have chosen for her, how she winds up adopting a toddler whose mother can't care for, and what happens when she winds up moving in with a woman whose self-esteem is crumbling after her divorce. In that book, characters and story are inseparable.

The same approach is needed for Wonder Woman. Too often, she is reduced to a "RAH RAH FEMINISM!!!!" role, her presence doing little for the story besides providing the audience with a kick-butt female hero to cheer for. Kingsolver would dive deep into her past, showing us her life among the Amazons and how it informed her approach to heroism. We would see what she thinks of the Justice League and how they treat her, whether any petty slights bother her more than those who made them think or care to admit, how she views her defeats and victories. It would be a slower, more character-driven approach to an icon, and that is exactly what Wonder Woman needs.

Gravity Falls theories (Season 2 spoilers):

Remember the bell Mr. Northwest used to keep Pacifica in line in "Northwest Manor Mystery"? And the room full of paintings portraying the Northwests' ancient sins? They're both creepy as all get-out, but in context, they don't make a ton of sense. How does Pacifica's father keep her in line with one little bell? Why would they keep paintings of events they don't own up to?

My theory: Because Bill Cipher is involved.

Bill helped create Pacifica's Pavlovian response through some terrible form of conditioning only he could devise. He either made the paintings himself or forced the Northwests to do it, punishing them if they attempted to destroy the paintings. Keeping the Northwest family under his control through psychotic yet whimsical means fits precisely within Bill's MO.

[Edgedancer he/him]

I was hopping that you'd say Dan Wells and you did it. Now I wonder what kind of villain they would come up with together for the crossover.

 

Any wishes to how to describe any of your Ships over in the RP for a litlle "they bonded over x" history of shipping pony comic?

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

I was hopping that you'd say Dan Wells and you did it. Now I wonder what kind of villain they would come up with together for the crossover.

Any wishes to how to describe any of your Ships over in the RP for a litlle "they bonded over x" history of shipping pony comic?

I'm sure it'd be absolutely insane, but still grounded. Maybe Sanderson would write the Joker, giving him a Heath Ledger sort of treatment; while Wells wrote for Luthor, making him a sympathetic antagonist.

Hurm....perhaps some of the less well-known ships, like Lightwards/Hat or Nighthound/Death.

And if anyone has any idea how Obliteration and I actually meet, I'm dying to know.

[Kobold King he/him]

And if anyone has any idea how Obliteration and I actually meet, I'm dying to know.

 

You're about to attend a friend's wedding, right?

 

Maybe you'll catch the bouquet of flowers the bride throws out, and then the preacher (a tall man with glasses and a goatee) will give you a subtle wink.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

You're about to attend a friend's wedding, right?

Maybe you'll catch the bouquet of flowers the bride throws out, and then the preacher (a tall man with glasses and a goatee) will give you a subtle wink.

I'll be sure to let you all know what the preacher looks like.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

There is only one word for a crossover of that magnitude: Awesome.

 

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

But why would they want to?

[Orlion Blight he/him]

But why would they want to?

Because they would be evil! EVIL! EVIIIIIIIIIILLLL!

[Edgedancer he/him]

I'm sure it'd be absolutely insane, but still grounded. Maybe Sanderson would write the Joker, giving him a Heath Ledger sort of treatment; while Wells wrote for Luthor, making him a sympathetic antagonist.

Hurm....perhaps some of the less well-known ships, like Lightwards/Hat or Nighthound/Death.

And if anyone has any idea how Obliteration and I actually meet, I'm dying to know.

Sadly, I couldn't include Lightwards/Hat because the Lightwards pony doesn't even have a hat but I sneaked in a refrence to Nighthound/Death. I hope you still like the result.

 

Your best bet to meet Obliteration would be to visit his home town Independence, Missouri.

[Kobold King he/him]

How did the wedding go? Did you have fun? Did anyone dramatically burst into the church at the last moment, shouting "As a matter of fact, I object to this union?"

Edited July 10, 2015 by Kobold King

[Quiver he/him]

Any form of assorted geekery at the wedding?

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

How did the wedding go? Did you have fun? Did anyone dramatically burst into the church at the last moment, shouting "As a matter of fact, I object to this union?"

 

 

Any form of assorted geekery at the wedding?

It was a very sweet wedding. No geekery in the ceremony itself, but my brother, who was a groomsman, told me that the bow ties and suspenders they wore kicked off several rounds of Matt Smith quotes.

But it was nice. They held it at a resort in the woods near Vancouver, WA, with small waterfalls and ponds and big tall trees. My brother wrote most of the poetic quotes in the groom's vows, one of which was "I long to embrace you the way the mountains embrace the sky," which I thought was sweet. And the groom was in the Navy, so for one of the engagement pictures that they played in a looped slide show during the reception, they re-enacted the famous V-J Day picture of the sailor kissing the nurse.

Overall, it went off without a hitch, and I'm extremely happy for them both. Even if it's more than a little weird, watching my friend get married when it seems like just yesterday he and my brother were writing ridiculous jokes on the back of my brother's summer homework.