DC Comics: Huntress Origins
Jan. 13th, 2012 10:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccatoriaSo. DC have announced a new comic, and Helena Wayne is coming back, huh?
Actually, I'm in an odd position here. Emotionally I'm pretty much totally signed up for this. It's a freaking team-up with Huntress and Power Girl, and to top if off, they've given them the title traditionally used for the Superman/Batmanfriendship comic. Also, while I came to appreciate Helena Bertinelli's unique brand of reckless and amazing thuggery, and level of determination that would keep her crawling over broken glass while holding her own guts in, it took a while to get there (and it took the audio adaptation of Greg Rucka's No Man's Land novel to really explain to me why she was fucking aces), while I came to love all that, I have a real soft spot for Helena Wayne, as a concept if nothing else.
So I'm excited for this idea, but I have to acknowledge that Bertinelli is a far more complete and interesting character than Wayne, as things stand.
Part of that is because Wayne hasn't been a character for 30 years. Back when she was created, there was a very different aesthetic and if her characterisation and motivations are a little transparent by modern standards, that's not entirely surprising.
Having read the first four issues of the Huntress mini series (written by the dude who originally created her all those years ago), the Huntress in that, whom we now know to be Wayne, certainly is a well-realised character and I look forward to finding out more about her. And my first thought on hearing this news was, "Excellent, they can use the personality established for Helena Bertinelli as an influence on updating Helena Wayne!"
Now I still think this is likely, but in thinking about it, I realised that without updating Wayne's origin story as the Huntress I'm not entirely sure how it would work on quite the brilliant gut level it works for Bertinelli. It turns out I feel that more of her character is based in her origin than I might initially have thought.
Both Helenas' origins are designed to evoke Bruce Wayne's. Both witness the death of family in unjust circumstances and are moved to avenge it. Superficially I think Helena Wayne's origin feels the most like a direct reference because of the biological connection, yes, but certainly because the image of her taking the oath to her mother's grave and the culprit being a lone, desperate man for ultimately pointless reasons. But Bertinelli's is more emotionally similar. Yet different enough it explains all the reasons that Helena Bertinelli and Bruce Wayne clash to terribly with each other.
Both witness their family slaughtered in front of them. Both are left with a desperate desire for justice - one that will not be met by the social systems in place to protect them.
But - very broadly speaking, because the two issues obviously overlap - Bruce Wayne is left with righteous anger and a desire to fix the system in order to protect the people, while Helena Bertinelli is left with disillusioned rage and a desire to tear the system down because it is irreparably broken and fails to protect the people.
I think this makes a lot of sense when you consider that Helena's family weren't killed by a desperate criminal in a senseless crime - they didn't die because a system failed. They were killed as part of a mafia feud. They were killed because the system was working. A system Helena's own family were complicit in.
Helena Bertinelli is angry all the time because it's not about the powerlessness that comes of being unprepared in a tragic moment in front of a desperate man like Joe Chill - it's about the powerlessness that comes of facing an entire system of control and violence - it's the powerlessness that comes of knowing it probably wouldn't have mattered if your dad was a ninja or your mom had a submachine gun in that moment, because you're facing down a squad of professionals and if you somehow manage to survive, they're not going to stop and you don't have the resources to oppose them, because you're fighting a system that's older and more powerful than you will ever be.
Obviously, intellectually, Batman understands this, but it's not the emotional core of his origin, and I think, thinking about it that way, explains to me a lot about why Helena is as vicious and nihilistic as she sometimes seems.
And I don't want to loose that feeling of Helena as a loose canon that not everyone entirely trusts, because that's one of the things she has to set her apart from other characters. And her conflict with Batman is brilliant, and if anything that would just be even more complicated and tragic if she knew she were secretly his daughter BUT NOT REALLY.
But I don't see how Helena Wayne's origin leads to that level of anger and recklessness - and also, yes, fierce, fierce loyalty, which I think of as an extension of her general distrust of everyone; once you get through that barrier she will do anything for you - in the same way as Helena Bertinelli's.
Her mother is killed in terrible circumstances yes. She would want to bring that killer to justice, yes. But she was also already an adult when it happened, she was raised by a loving family, and had already been trained in everything she needed to know.
Like I said, I feel kind of guilty in that I actively want Helena Wayne to come back, even if it means losing Bertinelli. I like the idea of her. I like Batman finally getting a daughter amongst all his sons (which would be less of an issue if they ever did anything with Cass Cain these days, but I digress). I understand the arguments that Helena Bertinelli is better because she doesn't have her identity so directly tied to a male character, but ultimately she will always be seen as part of the stable of bat characters, so while I acknowledge it as a fair point, I'm not sure it entirely trumps the notion of suddenly making Batman's eldest child a girl, or even the complicated question of, if she is going to be seen as derivative of Batman regardless, is it better to use that to slingshot her status by being his child or does that simply compound the problem? It's complicated is all I'm saying.
But having said all that, I realise now that Helena Bertinelli has a pretty freaking awesome origin that succinctly explains a lot of the shit that makes her awesome, and it's going to be a damn shame to lose that, and I'm worried her personality will either need to shift, or her personality won't mesh with her history and I'll feel like they're making her violent because it's cool not because that's who she ought to be.
My personal preference for this is to simply change Helena Wayne's origin so that it more closely resembles Bertinelli's. Perhaps Batman and Catwoman are murdered by the mob when she's a child (okay, unlikely given it's BATMAN, but it is parallel universe Batman!) Or perhaps she's raised by Catwoman away from her father and Catwoman eventually marries into the mob. Or...a billion other things made up by a better writer than me!
I'm not sure what I'm saying at this point really except...props Huntress, I'm sorry I never realised the Bertinelli origin was so deft until it was gone. Here's hoping that your new incarnation has a personality that sets her apart from her peers without it feeling arbitrary.
IN OTHER NEWS.
DC canceled a lot of books and launched a lot of new ones. Extremely briefly, I was very pleased with a new female-led book coming out and to see Nicola Scott getting work because I loved her stuff on Secret Six and Wonder Woman. I was also pleased to see some commitment to a diversity of genre with "Dial H" and "G.I. Commando". I was not pleased to see DC cancel like half of its solo books with people of colour as leads.
Personally, I was reading Mister Terrific, which okay I kind of acknowledge was partially down to nostalgic love of the character, but I really didn't think it was as bad as everyone made out, and Static Shock which surprised me but after I checked everything out in September, I was really impressed with it, and while it never made my pull list every time I saw a new one on the rack I kept impulse-buying it. He was totally new to me and I liked him way more than I thought I would. The book I'm really surprised by how much I'll miss is Blackhawks. I read the first one and was like, eh, okay, it's basically GI Joe. But I have a friend reading it so I kept up and dudes, it's turning into this insanely awesome cyborg story of transhumanism. Like, seriously, it's fucking brilliant. So, yeah. Alas, poor Blackhawks, I knew you.
Actually, I'm in an odd position here. Emotionally I'm pretty much totally signed up for this. It's a freaking team-up with Huntress and Power Girl, and to top if off, they've given them the title traditionally used for the Superman/Batman
So I'm excited for this idea, but I have to acknowledge that Bertinelli is a far more complete and interesting character than Wayne, as things stand.
Part of that is because Wayne hasn't been a character for 30 years. Back when she was created, there was a very different aesthetic and if her characterisation and motivations are a little transparent by modern standards, that's not entirely surprising.
Having read the first four issues of the Huntress mini series (written by the dude who originally created her all those years ago), the Huntress in that, whom we now know to be Wayne, certainly is a well-realised character and I look forward to finding out more about her. And my first thought on hearing this news was, "Excellent, they can use the personality established for Helena Bertinelli as an influence on updating Helena Wayne!"
Now I still think this is likely, but in thinking about it, I realised that without updating Wayne's origin story as the Huntress I'm not entirely sure how it would work on quite the brilliant gut level it works for Bertinelli. It turns out I feel that more of her character is based in her origin than I might initially have thought.
Both Helenas' origins are designed to evoke Bruce Wayne's. Both witness the death of family in unjust circumstances and are moved to avenge it. Superficially I think Helena Wayne's origin feels the most like a direct reference because of the biological connection, yes, but certainly because the image of her taking the oath to her mother's grave and the culprit being a lone, desperate man for ultimately pointless reasons. But Bertinelli's is more emotionally similar. Yet different enough it explains all the reasons that Helena Bertinelli and Bruce Wayne clash to terribly with each other.
Both witness their family slaughtered in front of them. Both are left with a desperate desire for justice - one that will not be met by the social systems in place to protect them.
But - very broadly speaking, because the two issues obviously overlap - Bruce Wayne is left with righteous anger and a desire to fix the system in order to protect the people, while Helena Bertinelli is left with disillusioned rage and a desire to tear the system down because it is irreparably broken and fails to protect the people.
I think this makes a lot of sense when you consider that Helena's family weren't killed by a desperate criminal in a senseless crime - they didn't die because a system failed. They were killed as part of a mafia feud. They were killed because the system was working. A system Helena's own family were complicit in.
Helena Bertinelli is angry all the time because it's not about the powerlessness that comes of being unprepared in a tragic moment in front of a desperate man like Joe Chill - it's about the powerlessness that comes of facing an entire system of control and violence - it's the powerlessness that comes of knowing it probably wouldn't have mattered if your dad was a ninja or your mom had a submachine gun in that moment, because you're facing down a squad of professionals and if you somehow manage to survive, they're not going to stop and you don't have the resources to oppose them, because you're fighting a system that's older and more powerful than you will ever be.
Obviously, intellectually, Batman understands this, but it's not the emotional core of his origin, and I think, thinking about it that way, explains to me a lot about why Helena is as vicious and nihilistic as she sometimes seems.
And I don't want to loose that feeling of Helena as a loose canon that not everyone entirely trusts, because that's one of the things she has to set her apart from other characters. And her conflict with Batman is brilliant, and if anything that would just be even more complicated and tragic if she knew she were secretly his daughter BUT NOT REALLY.
But I don't see how Helena Wayne's origin leads to that level of anger and recklessness - and also, yes, fierce, fierce loyalty, which I think of as an extension of her general distrust of everyone; once you get through that barrier she will do anything for you - in the same way as Helena Bertinelli's.
Her mother is killed in terrible circumstances yes. She would want to bring that killer to justice, yes. But she was also already an adult when it happened, she was raised by a loving family, and had already been trained in everything she needed to know.
Like I said, I feel kind of guilty in that I actively want Helena Wayne to come back, even if it means losing Bertinelli. I like the idea of her. I like Batman finally getting a daughter amongst all his sons (which would be less of an issue if they ever did anything with Cass Cain these days, but I digress). I understand the arguments that Helena Bertinelli is better because she doesn't have her identity so directly tied to a male character, but ultimately she will always be seen as part of the stable of bat characters, so while I acknowledge it as a fair point, I'm not sure it entirely trumps the notion of suddenly making Batman's eldest child a girl, or even the complicated question of, if she is going to be seen as derivative of Batman regardless, is it better to use that to slingshot her status by being his child or does that simply compound the problem? It's complicated is all I'm saying.
But having said all that, I realise now that Helena Bertinelli has a pretty freaking awesome origin that succinctly explains a lot of the shit that makes her awesome, and it's going to be a damn shame to lose that, and I'm worried her personality will either need to shift, or her personality won't mesh with her history and I'll feel like they're making her violent because it's cool not because that's who she ought to be.
My personal preference for this is to simply change Helena Wayne's origin so that it more closely resembles Bertinelli's. Perhaps Batman and Catwoman are murdered by the mob when she's a child (okay, unlikely given it's BATMAN, but it is parallel universe Batman!) Or perhaps she's raised by Catwoman away from her father and Catwoman eventually marries into the mob. Or...a billion other things made up by a better writer than me!
I'm not sure what I'm saying at this point really except...props Huntress, I'm sorry I never realised the Bertinelli origin was so deft until it was gone. Here's hoping that your new incarnation has a personality that sets her apart from her peers without it feeling arbitrary.
IN OTHER NEWS.
DC canceled a lot of books and launched a lot of new ones. Extremely briefly, I was very pleased with a new female-led book coming out and to see Nicola Scott getting work because I loved her stuff on Secret Six and Wonder Woman. I was also pleased to see some commitment to a diversity of genre with "Dial H" and "G.I. Commando". I was not pleased to see DC cancel like half of its solo books with people of colour as leads.
Personally, I was reading Mister Terrific, which okay I kind of acknowledge was partially down to nostalgic love of the character, but I really didn't think it was as bad as everyone made out, and Static Shock which surprised me but after I checked everything out in September, I was really impressed with it, and while it never made my pull list every time I saw a new one on the rack I kept impulse-buying it. He was totally new to me and I liked him way more than I thought I would. The book I'm really surprised by how much I'll miss is Blackhawks. I read the first one and was like, eh, okay, it's basically GI Joe. But I have a friend reading it so I kept up and dudes, it's turning into this insanely awesome cyborg story of transhumanism. Like, seriously, it's fucking brilliant. So, yeah. Alas, poor Blackhawks, I knew you.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-14 12:26 am (UTC)KUDOS.
Also, yeah, DC that whole "WE ARE SUPER INTO DIVERSITY" thing doesn't work as much when you don't advertise your POC-led books and then cancel them because sales are low. UGH.
I'm really hoping The Ray miniseries turns into an ongoing. At the moment it feels a little bit like that book DC can point at and go "but look we are super diverse!" but at the same time I am sitting there chinhandsing in delight at a book whose only white supporting cast is his adoptive parents. I CAN GET ON BOARD WITH THIS, DC. but why is it only four issues? why is this a miniseries and not an ongoing? why has there been like zero advertising for it?
WHY ARE THERE STILL LIKE A DOZEN BOOKS WITH BATMAN IN THEM WHAT THE FUCK. I would say we don't need more but Batman Inc. is probably the only chance I have of seeing Steph and Cass again, so.
UGH DC WHY DO I STILL CARE ABOUT YOU
no subject
Date: 2012-01-14 04:13 pm (UTC)I have super complicated thoughts about the diversity issue because I definitely don't buy into the "well why aren't people buying it?" aspect because, well bluntly because I believe that popular culture and the media has a social responsibility beyond the purely capitalistic. I also think that there's a pattern of not putting non-WASP characters in prominent roles, or under advertising stuff, etc. Equally I've read a number of articles, etc., about how difficult it is particularly with certain segments of the hardcore comics readership to convince them of anything new or changing, and advertising or no, I think there's a remarkable reluctance to moving to new incarnations of characters, and then you have these companies where the readership hates change, but the stuff they're harking back to is from this very male-WASP-dominated era and anything that doesn't have the pedigree of coming from that time is always going to be perceived as second rate, and that's...a complex problem.
I really wish someone smarter than me would write about it because I go back and forth on whether the best way to combat that is the DC way of embracing the concept of a Legacy Character, because then, in theory, we're already used to changing people behind that mask, and new characters can come along with the legitimacy of the old name, or whether that just draws attention to the problematic nostalgia to an era that sucked with regards to diversity and the Marvel method of just making up new people is a better way to play it, and hope they are popular enough to make up for not having been around so long.
Either way I think I'm saddest about Static because he really should have been DC's attempt to fill the Spider-man gap in their line-up. I hope he comes back in another team book at least.
And I will say that DC held off on canceling Voodoo even though she's selling worse than some of the titles that did get the ax. Possibly she is selling more consistently? I'm not sure, but given that women of colour have a representational issue that's even greater than people of colour in general, at least she's still around. I'm not personally a fan of the book, which makes me feel slightly hypocritical if it does tank and have to be canceled but on a purely representational basis, I'm glad she still has a title - I'm also glad that from what I've heard it stops being 90% about strippers after the first issue.
Aaaand now I'm babbling. Oh, right two things:
1) I hate that Batman has, now, FIVE FREAKING TITLES. But the title I really hate is Batman: the Dark Knight. It's just so nakedly there so that they can have a Batman book to release on that fourth week. It's weird and bizarre and mostly about Batman chasing a playboy bunny while on drugs from what I can tell. I mean, there's Batman. Fine. Detective, like Action, is something I'm willing to make an exception for, especially now they're bringing back the backup features, because it's kind of traditional, and doesn't always have to feature Batman (or Superman in the case of Action). Batman & Robin also at least makes it clear from the title what it's about. And now they have Batman Incorporated, which again has a clear mission statement about what sets it apart from the other bat titles. SO WHY DO WE STILL HAVE FUCKING BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT?! It's awful. You now have a different bat book to ship on week four. CANCEL IT I DON'T CARE THAT IT SELLS MORE THAN MOST OTHER COMIC BOOKS WILL EVER DREAM TO DO, KILL IT, KILL IT WITH FIRE. Ahem.
2) The Ray! Oh my god that comic is SO MUCH FUN. I adore it. It is, however, almost certain not to get an ongoing because sales of the mini series are in the toilet already. :( At least it's getting really good reviews though so hopefully they'll put him in something else. We picked it up because we like the dudes who write it, but missed them doing humour because All-Star Western is so darrrrk (I mean, what I read of it was good, but I really miss their take on Power Girl). So totally worth it.
You still care about DC cus there's still some really great, fun stuff there too. *hugs*
I can't believe I just wrote this much sorry!
Date: 2012-01-14 11:52 pm (UTC)I'm conflicted on Voodoo being kept - on the one hand, yay comic led by a PoC woman! On the other hand, comic that, from what I've seen, consistently objectifies said lead lady and has her as an alien. It doesn't seem all that great.
NO NO all your feelings on Batman: the Dark Knight I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH. Okay, seriously, we've got - Batman, Tec, Batman Inc. Dark Knight, Batman and Robin, JLI, Nightwing, Batgirl, Batwing, and Justice League, all of which either feature Bruce himself (by himself or as part of a team) or feature his family/associates and are likely to have him as a frequent guest star. That is ten books, not including RHaTO because I don't think he'll guest star in that, but given this massive crossover he still might. That is literally a FIFTH of the DCnU. People he is one human being I know you love him but he's NOT THAT GOOD. also he is a crappy father please fix that.
I love his family to bits, his family is comprised of the BEST people, but uh, Bruce himself is actually pretty much dead boring to me. EVERY MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY IS MORE INTERESTING, and I am including Tim in that statement so that should say how totally uninteresting I find him. (Nothing against Tim, he just keeps getting written as mini-Bruce, can do no wrong, etc.)
I really think if they'd advertised Static more, especially anywhere with audiences that would have watched his show (which was pretty popular I understand!) they could really have set him up as, yeah, the Spider-man of this universe. Snarky teenage genius superhero.
I really like the Legacy character way of getting PoC into the universe, I think it works really well. But when DC does do it, like with Cass Cain and Ryan Choi, they almost always go back to the original, either by benching or killing the successor in completely nonsensical ways. (alshdgd oh man Ryan you got a raw deal and you were a fantastic person, I'm sorry. and god knows I adore Steph Brown and her Batgirl run it was a thing of utter beauty, but I think they could have done way better in showing why Cass left being Batgirl and continuing to showcase her, seriously.)
and on the Helena Wayne thing - Bertinelli is one of my favorite characters in the DCU, hands-down. I love the character development and growth she's been through, I love her attitude and her view on life and everything about her. But I also love the idea of Bruce's oldest kid being a girl, of there being a girl in the Batfamily who's treated well who isn't Barbara. (Love you, Babs, sorry.) ALSO A;LSDHGDS;G A WORLD'S FINEST COMIC ABOUT THE FEMALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY HOLY FUCK THAT IS AWESOME. But! Bertinelli! TORN.
:(( UGH and again, I'm pretty sure that could be fixed by ADVERTISING IT I had heard there was going to be a Ray mini or ongoing coming up a while ago but literally nowhere had anything about it so I didn't realize it even existed until last week. A month after the first issue was released! that is really crappy advertising, given that I do follow quite a few comics fans and a couple comics news site. So yeah. :/ HE BETTER SHOW UP SOMEWHERE. I like him and I like his supporting cast a lot.
... okay, yeah, there is still some great stuff going on. SUPERGIRL. Wonder Woman is still REALLY EXCELLENT. The Huntress miniseries is a beautiful thing. They are doing some stuff right.
IT'S FINE, ALL THE WRITINGS!
Date: 2012-01-15 02:31 am (UTC)That said, I don't particularly have a problem with the concept of her being an alien hybrid. I don't think it's inherently sexist, racist or exploitative given that the story is told from her perspective. However there are a number of ways it could be all three of those things depending on how it's handled, which I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on. I've heard they've turned down the objectification but can't comment personally.
Re: Static - I didn't even know he had a TV show! I think maybe it never aired in the UK? I kind of want to check it out now, except I have an ambivalent relationship with animation so we'll see.
Re: Legacy characters! I think that the key thing they flubbed with Batgirl wasn't so much replacing Steph with Cass as not giving Cass more play as Black Bat when that happened. Like, just on a team or something, so we knew what was up with her. *crosses fingers for Batman Inc* Apparently, once Justice League jumps to "present" day after this first arc, Ryan Choi will be back as the Atom! Like, I'm sure he won't get that much page time because it'll probably still mostly revolve around the seven core members, but yay, Ryan!Choi!Atom!
Re: Advertising The Ray. In fairness to DC I do recall them putting previews for the Ray in back of every comic they published like, the week before it came out or something. I remember because that's how we found out about it and decided to check it out. Which I think is more than they did for any of the other mini series. But the specifics of this case aside, in general I agree with you. You really don't need to be advertising Batman; everyone's gonna buy that anyway.
Re: BATMAN ARGH. I think I wouldn't count books like Batgirl and Nightwing against the "ridiculous portion of the DC dedicated to Batman" just cus most of the Batfamily books are about the Batfamily not Batman (who I agree: boring and a jerk), and they are some super great characters. So I'm kind of okay with 20% of the DCU being about Gotham. But now 10% of the DCU is just about Batman himself? Dear lord, it really isn't needed. Why is he even in JLI? WHY? WHY DOES HE HAVE TO BE THERE?
I just keep picturing him crouched on gargoyles gritting out, "I work alonnnnnnne. COME ON ROBIN. No wait, I work alonnnnnneeeee, WHUT THE JLI DIDN'T INVITE ME TO BE ON THEIR TEAM? SCREW THAT SHIT! I work alonnnnnne, no Superman, go away, I work SO ALONE I'm giving our team-up book to the first pair of chicks who come along."
Huntress: "Uh...Dad? :D?"
Which brings us full-circle to Huntress. As I said, Helena Bertinelli isn't one of my all-time favourite characters, but even so, I really feel the loss of her all of a sudden. AND YET. BATMAN'S DAUGHTER MAKING OFF WITH BATMAN'S TEAM-UP TITLE WITH ANOTHER AWESOME LADY. I can't help it, I want to *swoon*
And to round off with positives; I agree with all you say (the art in Supergirl particularly is really beautiful, I think), and I'd also add that Birds of Prey is better than I thought it would be and in a lady-related positive that I don't think I've seen anyone really commenting on (which sort of surprises me), I love that Scott Snyder is kind of giving Abby Arcane her own mystical power, personal agency and place in the Green/Red/Rot mythology rather than just making her the human love interest once again.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 02:57 am (UTC)Even if it is sadly followed by Alfred professing a desire to play Hugh Hefner to the pathetic new bunny girl foe.
This is a bold new ice cream eating take on the batman and not just another slot filler!
no subject
Date: 2012-01-16 01:12 pm (UTC)http://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/07/odyssey-bruce-face.jpg
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 12:29 am (UTC)I cant compete with the WTF! of Odyssey.
I have only been "privileged" to read the newer issues with Batman riding dinosaurs and giant bats but didnt realise it was continuation of a past title.
Will have to hunt them down. I don't imagen it will all make sence after reading them though :P
no subject
Date: 2012-01-17 04:42 pm (UTC)http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/03/08/batman-odyssey-neal-adams-insane/
no subject
Date: 2012-01-19 02:04 am (UTC)Im glad they did and are still but what the hell were DC thinking when they published that.
It makes you think that if your big enough a name in the comics industry they will let you write anything.
Id normally be evil and torrent it but it seems not even pirates want to touch it. I hope it gets a TPB soon.
Talking of What the hell moments, what do you think of the new Action Comic? I was really enjoying the re-introduction, early days of a young, less than Invincible Superman. It was refreshing to see a little bit of a different take on the character but then all of a sudden it went "oh no its the anti superman army from the future!"
Still i guess comics would not be comics without the SUPRISE moments.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-19 02:29 am (UTC)Basically, the reason I screen anon comments is someone I know IRL but who I didn't want to be in contact with, and hadn't been in contact with for a very long time, found my LJ (and various other online IDs over the years) and started trying to talk to me while hiding his identity. This freaked me out and pissed me off because it's lacking in basic courtesy. Hence I turned on IP logging and anon screening. But I don't like to be a paranoid person so I don't generally check that shit unless I have a reason to be suspicious and your first comment was obviously not from a local IP.
But your later comments are from a different IP and one I thought I recognised as potentially local from the first batch of digits.
Sure enough, after doing some digging, your first post is from a Swiss VPN network that specialises in online anonymity and your next two comments are from an IP in the city where I live.
There are reasons why someone might be using an anonymising service, particularly given you mention torrents in your comment. There are other reasons you could be living in the same city not limited to coincidence and the fact I'm not super careful about hiding my broad location. You could even be someone else I know from real life who is not the specific person I am referencing (although in that case, again, it would be common courtesy to introduce yourself and kinda creepy not to).
But I gotta be honest, combined with your topics of interest, your discussion style and spelling errors, I'm thinking you are probably a dude with a history of inappropriately looking me up online under this and other handles despite me asking you not to do that and to leave me alone. For the purposes of identification without outing your actual name to everyone who is reading this, I'm referring to the person who sent an actual package of stuff to my parents' house a year or so ago because he still had my address from like...a decade ago.
So straight-up, I'm not sure what to do about this given I don't think you're going to admit who you are if you're who I think you are.
I think the best I can do is apologise to all the people who might want to anon comment in a noncreepy fashion on my LJ, including you, if you are one of those people. Seriously, if you're not who I think you are, I'm sorry. But if that is who you are, YET AGAIN, you are making me extremely uncomfortable. Stop it.
However, given I don't think you'd admit to it if you were, it's probably best to close this conversation.