Advanced Genealogies (Thinking about things, looking at things and understanding the things)

One very very important thing to note about this lecture; not only did it contain Futurama as one of its references to the theory, it also contained Batman. And if there was any way to make absolutely any subject more interesting or appealing, even more so than cartoons based 1000 years in the future; its by adding batman.

Now we have that cleared up, it's time we elaborated on Genealogies a little more (if for James' sake, if no one else's)

Last time we discussed Genealogies, it was a device for constructing out own ideas, and the benefits pulling and collating ideas has on the quality of a project. However, this time we were discussing how Genealogies can be used as a device for examining preconceived ideas; ideas who's histories we don't (and, as we will come to discuss, can never) know, trying to uncover the methodology, as well as the methods.

(This lecture and subject didn't come with much in the way of pictures,

so I've supplemented them with the genealogy of my favourite

Batman character: Jason Todd; The Robin who was made purely

to replace Dick Grayson, because people liked Dick Grayson, right?) 

(As if all these theory lectures feed into one another or something) The subject of subjectivity was brought up, along with Foucault's beliefs surrounding them, that concepts are something that we can create for, not only things that we ourselves create, things that have already been created. 
Subjectivity, in this way, is a tool. It's a way for us to form our own personal inquires that we have made on a subject, and for us to build and investigate upon when conducting our research.

Subjectivity comes with our own, personal, perspective. A singular, all encompassing perspective can not and never will exist; but our own perspective? That is always going to be unique, and is something that is worth exploring.

(Speaking of personal perspective, Jason Todd as Robin (Batman's sidekick) was

much more gritty and harsh that Dick Grayson. I, personally, am very fond of this

sort of character, as it creates a more realistic and abrassive dynamic between

Bruce, as an detached and distant adult, and Robin, a detached and distant teenager.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people did no like this, so something needed to be donet.)

So, when it comes to writing about the Genealogies of other people, it's important we explain the angle and context of what it is we are talking about. Because absolute perspectives (or 'Universal Truths) do not exist, it is very important we define the area we intend to study, otherwise we will be left trying to define a subject from every angle, which is impossible.

This essentially means applying the relevant historical context to what it is you are talking about, the perspectives and events we didn't have access to, before we begin discussing our own subjective views. This context (or the contingencies) we use to define what it we discuss can only defined by us, through our own writings and methods.

(Much like, rather than discussing all of Batman, I chose to focus exclusively on a single facet;

The character of Jason Todd... speaking of which:

The audience of Batman at the time of publication pettitioned for Jason Todd's

character to be killed off. So DC held a phone in scheme, where people could pay to

decide his fate. The split was very close to 50/50, but the vocal minority were louder 

(voted more) and ultimately, rather than rework the character, DC simply killed him)

When we come to writing our responses, there is a very ineloquent way to go about it... at least, that's how I've chosen to record it and it makes sense to me;

If we thing of a thing, whilst we look at something, then whatever it is come to think and understand about that thing, is valid and relevant to our own, personal and subjective, view point.

In this vain of thinking, it's simply not the things that we choose to research that are important: It's how we think about the things we choose to research, and how we choose to explain and represent how and why we think this way, and ultimately what this may mean, if only on a personal level.

(Content to have its cake and eat it too: DC decided to bring Jason back from the dead

,breaking a long standing tradition that, along with Uncle Ben; Jason Todd stayed dead no matter what.

From here he became his own character, The Red Hood, The training and skill of Batman, but with no hang ups about killing people.

This, whilst frustrating from the view point of a character meeting a concluded end, reintroduces the gritty dynamic 

Jason and Bruce had, which I was very fond of, Only this time with the point of contention being 

Batman's biggest moral hang up, leading to a lot of intense (and often entertaining) confrontation)

The way we should be thinking, when writing our own, subjective, theories on topics who's histories are not ultimately or universally defined (I.E; all of them) is like we are paranoid. Believing like there is some overarching theory, and we only understand a fraction of it, when investigating a case study, is the way we'll end up producing the most interesting pieces of writing and analysis.

Finally, as a closing statement to cap this whole thing off:
The things that we think, when regarding our analysis into subjects, should simply be the foundations that we build our own subjective and personal theories that try and explain and account for everything going on within our case studies, both in terms of the study itself and whatever it is we think regarding that study.

(Don't worry, I'm nearly done talking about a comic book character on a graphics blog post.

  When discussing Jason Todd; I ultimately believe him to be incredibly flawed, both in terms as a character, who is abrasive and callous (not

to mention murderous), but in his inception and his real world analouge, that he was created a grittier replacement to the first Robin, simply to sell

more comics, and then brought back, literally, from the dead to try and make him popular with seemingly no regard to what the readership wanted.

However, this is also why I enjoy him so much. His character flaws only serve to make him more relateable and human (or as human as a zombie

batman character could be), and his rough conceptual history gives him something of a success story, when compared to his recent portrayals in

films such as 'Under The Red Hood' and games like 'Arkham Knight' (and maybe even Batman vs Superman, if the grapevine is to be believed), as well 
as his run as a solo hero in comics which has been ultimately praised for its story and art, makes him truly a character you can root for.

As such, Jason Todd is my favourite character, and I'm sorry I used this blog post as an excuse to talk about him.)