Jason Todd: Robin, Red Hood, Arkham Knight Appreciation 2020

[AmiMizuno]

What do you guys think about making the Batfam more conntected with each other?

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

As I said, I love the idea of a more connected batfamily as long is really treated as one big team and not like writers have to stop their stories in the middle to do a mandated tie in with zero relevance in the larger plot.

[cc008]

What do you guys think about making the Batfam more conntected with each other?

As I said, I love the idea of a more connected batfamily as long is really treated as one big team and not like writers have to stop their stories in the middle to do a mandated tie in with zero relevance in the larger plot.

Yeah I'm 100% all for connectivity between the Bat family and their books.. so long as one isn't used to prop up any of the others.

[Aahz]

I mean, he might as well not be there since he didn't have a single line of dialogue. Just be there for cool-looking splash pages. If this is how they intend to keep the Batfamily more connected in 2021, then they shouldn't bother.

I usually don't mind if he just pops up in a Splash Page (I think Dick and Barbara were the only ones that got slightly more then that), but not when the Joker is evolved.

[Rise]

If they're so bent in making a more connected Batfamily, then they should do what Gotham Knights is doing and show them working as a proper team and not just something that makes for "neat" panels.

For once, I agree with you on something.

GK have been really enjoyable and actually better than the main Batman book.

[Zaresh]

For once, I agree with you on something.

GK have been really enjoyable and actually better than the main Batman book.

For as much as I've seen of the main Batman book, yep, Gotham Nights at least is more enjoyable, and has the virtue of different guest writers and stories. So you may not like the first in an issue, but love the following one.
I honestly hope this anthology book lasts long.

[RedBird]

In general, I agree with the majority here, the idea of the Batfamily working together as a group, being more interconnected, and the one off stories seen in Batman Gotham Knights is refreshing.
In regards to Jason specifically though? Whilst I don't mind the one off stories, (as mentioned) I don't see much value in the idea of him integrating into the Batfamily beyond a few team ups here and there in Gotham.

There seems to be a lack of consistency as to whether or not Jasons methods are tolerated. During the new52 period, it appeared as though Jason was being slowly welcomed back into the batfamily folds the more he co-operated and on the condition that he didn't kill whilst in Gotham or alongside the other Bats. As far as we know, Jason was still using lethal force in rhato new52 and had opted for nonlethal rounds in major Batfamily events like Batman Eternal. More evidence for the lack of resistance to his lethal methods was in Batman and Robin Eternal when Bruce tells Damian something unique about the other BatBoys and mentions that 'Jason is willing to do what Batman can't, when the world needs it.' Meaning he had come to accept Jasons methods.

I honestly thought this was as much of a decent compromise as you could get between Batman and Red Hood, where DC can still have it's little team ups (since they can't resist pretty group shots) since you can have Jason willing to 'keep it clean' for the sake of the mission, but still have him following his own code elsewhere and in his own title.

However Rhato Rebirth and its editorial influence threw a wrench into that status quo, by then having Jason keep to Bruces no kill rules not only in Gotham, but all the way into Qurac and up until Rhato 25 when they had a falling-out, so Jason killing is now seen as a backwards step for the character, rather than in new52 where it was an accepted fact and part of a compromise. And aside from the latest Nightwing and Batman issue 100 when Bruce calls in the whole family cause he once again is magically back to realising he is stronger with the power of family and friendship and yadda yadda, Jason post rhato 25 has been largely seen as either a shunned outcast or an enemy.

If Jason being more integrated into the Batfamily means he'll be undermined and his moral code will be deemed meaningless. Then no thanks. I'd much prefer him on his own or at least back to the new52 status quo, where there was compromise but definitely not complete conformity.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

In general, I agree with the majority here, the idea of the Batfamily working together as a group, being more interconnected, and the one off stories seen in Batman Gotham Knights is refreshing.
In regards to Jason specifically though? Whilst I don't mind the one off stories, (as mentioned) I don't see much value in the idea of him integrating into the Batfamily beyond a few team ups here and there in Gotham.

There seems to be a lack of consistency as to whether or not Jasons methods are tolerated. During the new52 period, it appeared as though Jason was being slowly welcomed back into the batfamily folds the more he co-operated and on the condition that he didn't kill whilst in Gotham or alongside the other Bats. As far as we know, Jason was still using lethal force in rhato new52 and had opted for nonlethal rounds in major Batfamily events like Batman Eternal. More evidence for the lack of resistance to his lethal methods was in Batman and Robin Eternal when Bruce tells Damian something unique about the other BatBoys and mentions that 'Jason is willing to do what Batman can't, when the world needs it.' Meaning he had come to accept Jasons methods.

I honestly thought this was as much of a decent compromise as you could get between Batman and Red Hood, where DC can still have it's little team ups (since they can't resist pretty group shots) since you can have Jason willing to 'keep it clean' for the sake of the mission, but still have him following his own code elsewhere and in his own title.

However Rhato Rebirth and its editorial influence threw a wrench into that status quo, by then having Jason keep to Bruces no kill rules not only in Gotham, but all the way into Qurac and up until Rhato 25 when they had a falling-out, so Jason killing is now seen as a backwards step for the character, rather than in new52 where it was an accepted fact and part of a compromise. And aside from the latest Nightwing and Batman issue 100 when Bruce calls in the whole family cause he once again is magically back to realising he is stronger with the power of family and friendship and yadda yadda, Jason post rhato 25 has been largely seen as either a shunned outcast or an enemy.

If Jason being more integrated into the Batfamily means he'll be undermined and his moral code will be deemed meaningless. Then no thanks. I'd much prefer him on his own or at least back to the new52 status quo, where there was compromise but definitely not complete conformity.

See, the idea that Jason has been killing on a regular basis even outside of Gotham is a complete misconception.

Even in the N52 Jason only really killed the Qurac terrorists while freeing Roy at the start, and then, he only killed Suzie Zu (who ended up being revived, rendering the whole thing moot. From there he only limited to use lethal force when fighting otherworldly threats like the Untitled, the Blight, or Hellspont, barring some very specific exceptions like the guy behind the Washington nuking attempt in issue 32 or the Venom enhanced mercenaries of issue 36. And the latter can be somewhat excused as being in self-defense. Besides those particular examples, Jason was never seen using lethal force (Roy and Kori were the ones killing people, oddly enough) and by the same token, it was never explicitly stated that he used rubber bullets. Issue 48 of the second volume is the only time it has been explicitly stated this was the case, before it, the only explanation given was him hitting the bad guys in non-lethal places during the War of Robins arc in Batman & Robin.

During RH&A, Jason was again only seeing killing Palette to save Roy in the first issue, and then a bunch mercs off-panel and then the rogue STAR Labs Scientist in issue 2, from there his killings were once again limited to supernatural threats and once Joker's Daughter joined them, him going non-lethal was an explicit plot point that remained until the end of the series, where he once again broke his vow to save Roy (notice a trend here?)

Rebirth RHATO also kept Jason from killing people up until he shot the Penguin and while it was made a huge deal at the moment, the truth of the matter is that it was pushed by Editorial because they wanted to keep Bruce isolated from his allies to fit King's story, using Roy's death in HIC was a last-minute addition tp retroactively explain his return to violence at the start of The Outlaw period. And even then, this didn't last long, by the time Prince of Gotham started he also stopped killing people, limiting himself to using lethal force against the All Caste Assassins.

So yeah, Jason killing being seen as a regression of his character at this point is 100% intentional and completely in line to how he was written by Lobdell.

[Jackalope89]

See, the idea that Jason has been killing on a regular basis even outside of Gotham is a complete misconception.

Even in the N52 Jason only really killed the Qurac terrorists while freeing Roy at the start, and then, he only killed Suzie Zu (who ended up being revived, rendering the whole thing moot. From there he only limited to use lethal force when fighting otherworldly threats like the Untitled, the Blight, or Hellspont, barring some very specific exceptions like the guy behind the Washington nuking attempt in issue 32 or the Venom enhanced mercenaries of issue 36. And the latter can be somewhat excused as being in self-defense. Besides those particular examples, Jason was never seen using lethal force (Roy and Kori were the ones killing people, oddly enough) and by the same token, it was never explicitly stated that he used rubber bullets. Issue 48 of the second volume is the only time it has been explicitly stated this was the case, before it, the only explanation given was him hitting the bad guys in non-lethal places during the War of Robins arc in Batman & Robin.

During RH&A, Jason was again only seeing killing Palette to save Roy in the first issue, and then a bunch mercs off-panel and then the rogue STAR Labs Scientist in issue 2, from there his killings were once again limited to supernatural threats and once Joker's Daughter joined them, him going non-lethal was an explicit plot point that remained until the end of the series, where he once again broke his vow to save Roy (notice a trend here?)

Rebirth RHATO also kept Jason from killing people up until he shot the Penguin and while it was made a huge deal at the moment, the truth of the matter is that it was pushed by Editorial because they wanted to keep Bruce isolated from his allies to fit King's story, using Roy's death in HIC was a last-minute addition tp retroactively explain his return to violence at the start of The Outlaw period. And even then, this didn't last long, by the time Prince of Gotham started he also stopped killing people, limiting himself to using lethal force against the All Caste Assassins.

So yeah, Jason killing being seen as a regression of his character at this point is 100% intentional and completely in line to how he was written by Lobdell.

And when Jason shot Penguin, it was with a blank (revealed later on).

[Konja7]

See, the idea that Jason has been killing on a regular basis even outside of Gotham is a complete misconception.

Even in the N52 Jason only really killed the Qurac terrorists while freeing Roy at the start, and then, he only killed Suzie Zu (who ended up being revived, rendering the whole thing moot. From there he only limited to use lethal force when fighting otherworldly threats like the Untitled, the Blight, or Hellspont, barring some very specific exceptions like the guy behind the Washington nuking attempt in issue 32 or the Venom enhanced mercenaries of issue 36. And the latter can be somewhat excused as being in self-defense. Besides those particular examples, Jason was never seen using lethal force (Roy and Kori were the ones killing people, oddly enough) and by the same token, it was never explicitly stated that he used rubber bullets. Issue 48 of the second volume is the only time it has been explicitly stated this was the case, before it, the only explanation given was him hitting the bad guys in non-lethal places during the War of Robins arc in Batman & Robin.

During RH&A, Jason was again only seeing killing Palette to save Roy in the first issue, and then a bunch mercs off-panel and then the rogue STAR Labs Scientist in issue 2, from there his killings were once again limited to supernatural threats and once Joker's Daughter joined them, him going non-lethal was an explicit plot point that remained until the end of the series, where he once again broke his vow to save Roy (notice a trend here?)

Rebirth RHATO also kept Jason from killing people up until he shot the Penguin and while it was made a huge deal at the moment, the truth of the matter is that it was pushed by Editorial because they wanted to keep Bruce isolated from his allies to fit King's story, using Roy's death in HIC was a last-minute addition tp retroactively explain his return to violence at the start of The Outlaw period. And even then, this didn't last long, by the time Prince of Gotham started he also stopped killing people, limiting himself to using lethal force against the All Caste Assassins.

So yeah, Jason killing being seen as a regression of his character at this point is 100% intentional and completely in line to how he was written by Lobdell.

Yeah. Unlike general audience idea about Jason, the current situation in comics is that Jason doesn't regularly kill anymore.

Jason could use lethal force in a really extreme situation, but he doesn't kill criminals left and right.


Even Johns (and I don't think he reads RHAO) that makes Jason pretty violent in Three Jokers, it still shows the situation of Jason killing as something uncommon.

[RedBird]

See, the idea that Jason has been killing on a regular basis even outside of Gotham is a complete misconception.

Complete misconception how? Jason most certainly has killed outside of Gotham. You even provided several examples. I never stated that Jason killing was a regular thing, just that he wasn't bound to non lethal means.

See, the idea that Jason has been killing on a regular basis even outside of Gotham is a complete misconception.

Even in the N52 Jason only really killed the Qurac terrorists while freeing Roy at the start, and then, he only killed Suzie Zu (who ended up being revived, rendering the whole thing moot. From there he only limited to use lethal force when fighting otherworldly threats like the Untitled, the Blight, or Hellspont, barring some very specific exceptions like the guy behind the Washington nuking attempt in issue 32 or the Venom enhanced mercenaries of issue 36. And the latter can be somewhat excused as being in self-defense. Besides those particular examples, Jason was never seen using lethal force (Roy and Kori were the ones killing people, oddly enough)

........

During RH&A, Jason was again only seeing killing Palette to save Roy in the first issue, and then a bunch mercs off-panel and then the rogue STAR Labs Scientist in issue 2, from there his killings were once again limited to supernatural threats and once Joker's Daughter joined them, him going non-lethal was an explicit plot point that remained until the end of the series, where he once again broke his vow to save Roy (notice a trend here?)

Well that's not all, from the top of my head there was also the Talon he killed and Plytus who asked for Jason to kill him in the rhato annual 2. Also, killing even in self defence, is still a no-no in Bat circles, hence why Jason differs from the bunch.
Nowhere in my statement did I say that Jason ONLY killed, just that he was not restricted to non lethal means. This rebuttal does not refute what I originally stated.
Bottom line is, when push came to shove, Jason still killed in his own series.

and by the same token, it was never explicitly stated that he used rubber bullets. Issue 48 of the second volume is the only time it has been explicitly stated this was the case, before it, the only explanation given was him hitting the bad guys in non-lethal places during the War of Robins arc in Batman & Robin.

I just want to make it clear that my statement was intending to refer to the nonlethal aspect of his time with the Bats, though I should have written nonlethal attacks as opposed to non lethal rounds, so fair point there. But I just want to point out that it indeed HAS been explicitly stated by Jason that he uses rubber bullets in new52, though it's not without context. (For example mind controlled civilians. See Batman Eternal 41) The fact that he is warned to attack people in non lethal places is also stated and upheld in Batman Eternal issue 18 and 19. And the rubber bullets also made a return in rhato rebirth issue 48, this time on criminals.

Rebirth RHATO also kept Jason from killing people up until he shot the Penguin and while it was made a huge deal at the moment, the truth of the matter is that it was pushed by Editorial because they wanted to keep Bruce isolated from his allies to fit King's story, using Roy's death in HIC was a last-minute addition tp retroactively explain his return to violence at the start of The Outlaw period.

We've already established rhato rebirth kept Jason from killing till the fallout from issue 25, whether it's due to Roy's death or Bruces separation or not was not the issue. The issue I was pointing out was the complete editorial change in approach to Red Hood up till that point to even warrant this supposed 'regression'.

And even then, this didn't last long, by the time Prince of Gotham started he also stopped killing people, limiting himself to using lethal force against the All Caste Assassins.

This impression that it didn't 'last long' is only because Jason came across few enemies from the Prince of Gotham arc that weren't 'All Caste Assassins' (though I'm not sure why them being assassins makes taking their lives any better. Limiting or not it's still a lethal act), and then after there was the Outlaw arc which is one of the few arcs that gave a halfway decent explanation for Jason refusing to kill, since he wanted to be a role model for his students and not resort to killing as eagerly as they did. Also again, this 'didn't last long' statement doesn't add up since Jason attempted to kill several clown henchmen just 2 issues ago, in rhato rebirth issue 48. He even acts like a smart ass about it since he promised Bruce he wouldn't shoot and kill (he mentions the rubber bullets in the issue since it's 'Bruces' city) but decides he can simply let them perish in the building explosion as a loop hole. So far, he still seems to be fine with killing.

So yeah, Jason killing being seen as a regression of his character at this point is 100% intentional and completely in line to how he was written by Lobdell.

I doubt that considering what just happened only two issues ago, but mainly, I would like to point out this interview which is what I was referring to with the editorial change in approach to Red Hood.


SL
'I think Jason should only kill when he doesn’t have other options. I think he should probably only kill when his life (or that of another person) is in imminent danger.

When the series started, I understood they wanted to instill a “No Killing In Gotham City Rule.” But when we got to Qurac, I had him killing terrorists and soldiers who were trying to kill him. I got a note: “he can’t kill, remember?” I was like, “he’s in the middle of a war!” The note came back: “doesn’t matter. He promised.” Honestly, I was a little embarrassed: part of putting him in the middle of the war was so that I thought I could write a sort of Jason Unbound! So now I have him in the middle of a war and he can’t shoot any one. Sigh.'



So, yeah, it wasn't intentional, at least not by the writer. Jason all of a sudden abiding by Bruces rules even outside of Gotham and away from bats was an editorial decision.
As I already stated, the exact kind of decision that I hope does not make a return. Jason should be lethal when he needs to be.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

Complete misconception how? Jason most certainly has killed outside of Gotham. You even provided several examples. I never stated that Jason killing was a regular thing, just that he wasn't bound to non lethal means.

I'm not saying that he doesn't kill, but that he doesn't kill regularly, small but significant difference.

Well that's not all, from the top of my head there was also the Talon he killed and Plytus who asked for Jason to kill him in the rhato annual 2. Also, killing even in self defence, is still a no-no in Bat circles, hence why Jason differs from the bunch.
Nowhere in my statement did I say that Jason ONLY killed, just that he was not restricted to non lethal means. This rebuttal does not refute what I originally stated.
Bottom line is, when push came to shove, Jason still killed in his own series.

The Talon was unlivin and Plytus was an alien. See my post again, Jason's vow to not kill only applies to humans. Aliens and mystical/magical beinngs are fair game, an attitude that some writers have had Bruce sharing.

I just want to make it clear that my statement was intending to refer to the nonlethal aspect of his time with the Bats, though I should have written nonlethal attacks as opposed to non lethal rounds, so fair point there. But I just want to point out that it indeed HAS been explicitly stated by Jason that he uses rubber bullets in new52, though it's not without context. (For example mind controlled civilians. See Batman Eternal 41) The fact that he is warned to attack people in non lethal places is also stated and upheld in Batman Eternal issue 18 and 19. And the rubber bullets also made a return in rhato rebirth issue 48, this time on criminals.

I don't counted the Eternals because Jason was awfully mishandled and written OOC of character there to begin with, so those stories only serve as an example of how to not write a connected Batfamily. Issue 48 of the second Volume of RHATO is the only time Lobdell himself has explicitly stated that Jason was using rubber bullets.

We've already established rhato rebirth kept Jason from killing till the fallout from issue 25, whether it's due to Roy's death or Bruces separation or not was not the issue. The issue I was pointing out was the complete editorial change in approach to Red Hood up till that point to even warrant this supposed 'regression'.

Again, because the priority was set the stage for King's story with no care of what writers of the extended Batfamily books had planned for their series. Lobdell simply did the best he could with the hand he was dealt with.

This impression that it didn't 'last long' is only because Jason came across few enemies from the Prince of Gotham arc that weren't 'All Caste Assassins' (though I'm not sure why them being assassins makes taking their lives any better. Limiting or not it's still a lethal act), and then after there was the Outlaw arc which is one of the few arcs that gave a halfway decent explanation for Jason refusing to kill, since he wanted to be a role model for his students and not resort to killing as eagerly as they did. Also again, this 'didn't last long' statement doesn't add up since Jason attempted to kill several clown henchmen just 2 issues ago, in rhato rebirth issue 48. He even acts like a smart ass about it since he promised Bruce he wouldn't shoot and kill (he mentions the rubber bullets in the issue since it's 'Bruces' city) but decides he can simply let them perish in the building explosion as a loop hole. So far, he still seems to be fine with killing.

Is not being assassins what matters here, is the fact that they're magical beings and not simple humans. Jason wanting to be a good role model is also something that had been established previously during RHA with Duela, so again, the characterization is consistent. And lastly, Bruce has used similar loopholes in the past so is not surprising for Jason to use them too.

I doubt that considering what just happened only two issues ago, but mainly, I would like to point out this interview which is what I was referring to with the editorial change in approach to Red Hood. So, yeah, it wasn't intentional, at least not by the writer. Jason all of a sudden abiding by Bruces rules even outside of Gotham and away from bats was an editorial decision. As I already stated, the exact kind of decision that I hope does not make a return. Jason should be lethal when he needs to be.

Lobdell had a lot of plans and ideas for stories that never materialized for one reason or another, so is pointless to dwell on them, what matters is what made to print, and that shows that Jason simply doesn't kill people in the regular anymore, and when he does is only in straight self-defense, to protect the people closest to him or against non-human threats. All of which has been present in series since the start.


EDIT:

Oh and heads up, DITF has leaked online.

[RedBird]

I'm not saying that he doesn't kill, but that he doesn't kill regularly, small but significant difference.

That was MY POINT exactly. I never stated that Jason killed regularly to begin with, just that he does in fact, kill.

The Talon was unlivin and Plytus was an alien. See my post again, Jason's vow to not kill only applies to humans. Aliens and mystical/magical beinngs are fair game, an attitude that some writers have had Bruce sharing.

I don't counted the Eternals because Jason was awfully mishandled and written OOC of character there to begin with, so those stories only serve as an example of how to not write a connected Batfamily. Issue 48 of the second Volume of RHATO is the only time Lobdell himself has explicitly stated that Jason was using rubber bullets.

Again, because the priority was set the stage for King's story with no care of what writers of the extended Batfamily books had planned for their series. Lobdell simply did the best he could with the hand he was dealt with.

Is not being assassins what matters here, is the fact that they're magical beings and not simple humans. Jason wanting to be a good role model is also something that had been established previously during RHA with Duela, so again, the characterization is consistent. And lastly, Bruce has used similar loopholes in the past so is not surprising for Jason to use them too.

Lobdell had a lot of plans and ideas for stories that never materialized for one reason or another, so is pointless to dwell on them, what matters is what made to print, and that shows that Jason simply doesn't kill people in the regular anymore, and when he does is only in straight self-defense, to protect the people closest to him or against non-human threats. All of which has been present in series since the start.

All this is, is either stating what has been already said, or splitting hairs as to what counts as killing, and when content shouldn't count, because you determine it to be OOC. That wasn't what my original post was about, neither was it about 'dwelling' on what plans or ideas were for Lobdells stories. All that is irrelevant.

My entire point from my first post, and the point I have been reiterating, was that in new52, Jason killed. Period.
Whether or not it is in self defence, or to protect loved ones, is not what I was stating.
The reason is not relevant. The relevant part was that during the new52, he did in fact, kill, when he needed to. Unlike Batman.
It was never treated with as much regression as it was in rhato rebirth. It was an accepted fact. Jason had been slowly included in the batfamily all throughout the new52, whilst still killing when he needed to.
Where as in rhato rebirth, all of a sudden Jason could not kill AT ALL, under any circumstances, even in self defence, and still remain part of the batfamily. That was a distinct change. A distinct editorial change, as I mentioned. It's not about dwelling on the change that occurred, but about hoping that history doesn't repeat itself.

And IF Jason is to be included in more batfamily content in the future, I hope it doesn't mean that he will have to be again restricted to non lethal means for any and every situation as he was in rhato rebirth 1-25.
Jason should still be lethal when/if he needs to be.

EDIT:

Oh and heads up, DITF has leaked online.

That explains a few comments I've been seeing. Thanks for the heads up.

[RedBird]

Also, going way back to the topic of the Gotham Knights game, and content we'd like to see.
Along with NPCs roaming around the city, let there also be dogs and cats in Gotham as well.
And let us pet them.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

That was MY POINT exactly. I never stated that Jason killed regularly to begin with, just that he does in fact, kill.


All this is, is either stating what has been already said, or splitting hairs as to what counts as killing, and when content shouldn't count, because you determine it to be OOC. That wasn't what my original post was about, neither was it about 'dwelling' on what plans or ideas were for Lobdells stories. All that is irrelevant.

My entire point from my first post, and the point I have been reiterating, was that in new52, Jason killed. Period.
Whether or not it is in self defence, or to protect loved ones, is not what I was stating.
The reason is not relevant. The relevant part was that during the new52, he did in fact, kill, when he needed to. Unlike Batman.
It was never treated with as much regression as it was in rhato rebirth. It was an accepted fact. Jason had been slowly included in the batfamily all throughout the new52, whilst still killing when he needed to.
Where as in rhato rebirth, all of a sudden Jason could not kill AT ALL, under any circumstances, even in self defence, and still remain part of the batfamily. That was a distinct change. A distinct editorial change, as I mentioned. It's not about dwelling on the change that occurred, but about hoping that history doesn't repeat itself.

And IF Jason is to be included in more batfamily content in the future, I hope it doesn't mean that he will have to be again restricted to non lethal means for any and every situation as he was in rhato rebirth 1-25.
Jason should still be lethal when/if he needs to be.

Jason not killing during Rebirth was an explicit plot point, so yeah, if Jason is to remain in Gotham and be closer to the Batfamily, that will be his status quo (See at Gotham Knights) since otherwise, it will cause the entire setting to unravel itself. Especially in light of characters like Clownhunter around.

And I elaborated upon because in your original post it came off as you having the idea that Jason killing was both his only response to bad guys and an integral part of his character, something that it hasn't been true for a long while.