Call me Sol. I write Animorphs AUs, Animorphs meta, Animorphs fan fiction, and anything else I can think of to write about Animorphs. Also, I really like Animorphs.
Making "schloop" the real Andalite technical term for things being sucked into z-space actually sounds like something the series would have done. And then they would all stand around repeating "schloop" to each other in silly voices while Ax rolled all four of his eyes as though he had any right whatsoever to complain about this particular behavior.
I love the idea of the kids’ dumb teenage slang — like the word “Animorph”, for that matter — not only catching on, but being treated as Extremely Official Terminology in a post-war world.
Marco: …and then Ax was all kersplat because he went kinda soggy between morphs?
Earth Scientists: [nodding solemnly] [writing down the words “soggy” and “kersplat” as new mid-morph stages]
.
Marco: So then we did the thing where we just, like, fell out of the sky and tried to flatten our target. It was a classic Cassie Maneuver.
Earth Historian: That’s “Cassie Maneuver” with two “s"es, correct?
.
Marco: I can’t go into detail about that issue, it was a Code Hanson. You know, one of the extremely classified missions that are still impossible to discuss years later.
Earth Biographer: Code…
Marco: Hanson. Like the band. Obviously I can’t tell you where the name comes from—
Earth Biographer: Because it’s a Code Hanson, got it.
Marco, scribbling out whole chunks of Jake’s memoirs: You know, there are secrets to protect the very space-time continuum, and then there are secrets to protect our dignity. Which is more important, Big Jake?
Jake, weary: Your dignity.
Marco: Mine especially. Now, about my time as the cutest llama on TV…
Making "schloop" the real Andalite technical term for things being sucked into z-space actually sounds like something the series would have done. And then they would all stand around repeating "schloop" to each other in silly voices while Ax rolled all four of his eyes as though he had any right whatsoever to complain about this particular behavior.
I love the idea of the kids’ dumb teenage slang — like the word “Animorph”, for that matter — not only catching on, but being treated as Extremely Official Terminology in a post-war world.
Marco: …and then Ax was all kersplat because he went kinda soggy between morphs?
Earth Scientists: [nodding solemnly] [writing down the words “soggy” and “kersplat” as new mid-morph stages]
.
Marco: So then we did the thing where we just, like, fell out of the sky and tried to flatten our target. It was a classic Cassie Maneuver.
Earth Historian: That’s “Cassie Maneuver” with two “s"es, correct?
.
Marco: I can’t go into detail about that issue, it was a Code Hanson. You know, one of the extremely classified missions that are still impossible to discuss years later.
Earth Biographer: Code…
Marco: Hanson. Like the band. Obviously I can’t tell you where the name comes from—
Earth Biographer: Because it’s a Code Hanson, got it.
if tobias were infested by a yeerk while in his human form, how do you think the morphing technology would handle it? assuming it disappeared/melded into his body when he demorphed back to hawk, would its body only reappear if he morphed back to that specific human dna set, or any human form, or what? could it just avoid kandrona starvation indefinitely that way?
I assume, based on my own understanding of how morphing works, that the yeerk would get schlooped into z-space along with Tobias’s human shape as soon as Tobias demorphed. And that then he would be able to morph a yeerk-infested human, but not the non-yeerk-infested version of his human self. Given that Tobias seems ambivalent about humanness, it isn’t necessarily going to be an inconvenience for him to just never morph his human self again.
but marco lost his rabies when he morphed the roach, right? and we can assume the kids naturally pick up a lot of germs and fleas and stuff being animals running around in the woods and we never hear about them getting fleas or ticks back when they go back to their animal forms, only when one morphs and the others morph flea and hitch a ride. and an infectious germ is a very very small parasite. so why would tobias’ morph keep the yeerk parasite if they never keep other parasites?
I would argue the yeerk would be kept, not because of some fundamental difference between it and other parasites, but because it is supported by canon: visser three can morph and the yeerk is still alive when he goes back, so are the yeerks when in the animorphs bodies. When they morph, even though the yeerks physical form isn’t there, its mind is still there. So I think for Tobias it would still be in control if he went back to hawk, but would have to become a human again every three days to stay alive or starve to death in z-space.
If I had to come up with logic for it, I would say maybe it has to do with the fact that the yeerk is sentient and in control of the body. Just like if someone becomes a fly, the human brain is not there, but the human mind is still in control. The same would go for the yeerk mind, because the technology detects that that’s the brain making the decisions. But realistically I think the answer is really as simple as “the rules are not 100% fleshed out re: what foreign organisms stay in the body when morphing”
if tobias were infested by a yeerk while in his human form, how do you think the morphing technology would handle it? assuming it disappeared/melded into his body when he demorphed back to hawk, would its body only reappear if he morphed back to that specific human dna set, or any human form, or what? could it just avoid kandrona starvation indefinitely that way?
I assume, based on my own understanding of how morphing works, that the yeerk would get schlooped into z-space along with Tobias’s human shape as soon as Tobias demorphed. And that then he would be able to morph a yeerk-infested human, but not the non-yeerk-infested version of his human self. Given that Tobias seems ambivalent about humanness, it isn’t necessarily going to be an inconvenience for him to just never morph his human self again.
An au wherein the story moved much slower/what if the story took much longer? Where we begin with the animorphs as normal but by the time they finish the series theyve aged well into a decade. Wehere ny the end of the series theyve been at this war for ten years but also a lot.more normal things happen. There are weeks where nothing really major seems to happen. They have genuine moments where they can enjoy jist being kids and teens for more than a few days.
I don’t even want to add to this. I just want this to be canon. More school dances, more fun weekends of nothing happening, more therapy, more non-yeerk stuff in these kids’ lives.
I have to point out, there's an obvious reason Batman doesn't kill the Joker: He legally can't. It's one thing for Batman to beat super criminals up and throw them in jail but if he actually killed any of his enemies, even a maniac like the Joker, he'd no doubt get arrested or at the very least be wanted. Frankly, I never get why people make it seem like Batman has to kill the joker. The police have guns, they could do that. Gotham has the death penalty. They could use it on him. It's not Batman's job to kill the Joker anymore than it is his job to keep him in prison. He's only responsible for stopping the clown from murdering people.
Yep, I agree entirely. Batman works outside the law, but he’s also very much about helping fill in the gaps in existing systems through contributing detective work — the character was originally conceived as “Sherlock Holmes by way of Zorro.” He’s not an executioner, and he recognizes everyone’s right to a fair trial. If the Gotham courts keep assigning Joker to Arkham, then Batman’s going to do what he can to clean up corruption in the Gotham courts and then assume they mostly get it right most of the time.
Also, most circumstances where it’s possible to kill the Joker are not cases where killing is ethically defensible. Arguably there is no situation wherein Batman is 100% defenseless or 100% unable to defend others, so he cannot justify killing. It would pretty much always be murder. If he executes people after having neutralized them, then he’s not really a good guy anymore.
There’s also the meta angle on all of this, i.e. that Batman is the creation of literally hundreds of writers and will continue under the writing of hundreds more. Not only can DC itself not kill the Joker — the Joker sells comic books — but it would also be discourteous at best for any DC writer to make that decision with Batman because it forces dozens of other creators to respond. If one of your colleagues is writing a Justice League plot where Batman works with Superman, another has a Robin comic that requires Batman’s presence at home, and another is building towards a Birds of Prey reveal that hinges on Batman, you’ve just screwed up all their lives by killing the Joker.
Near as I can tell, the whole “why doesn’t Batman just kill the Joker” conversation seems to have originated with Batman: Under the Red Hood, which asks that exact question and then offers no good answers. (Reason #43 that I friggin’ hate Red Hood…) It’s a frankly stupid question to build a comic book arc around, because none of Batman’s stated answers make a ton of sense in-universe, and at some point Red Hood starts to look whiny and illogical for not killing the Joker himself. (Reason #44!)
But yeah, “Why doesn’t Batman just kill the Joker?” is not the major logical fallacy (e.g. “Why not ride eagles to Mordor?”) that a lot of fans seem to think it is. The answer “because he’s a basically decent person and basically decent people try to avoid murder whenever possible” seems almost too obvious to be worth mentioning.
@chuplayswithfire
The things about Red Hood wanting Joker dead is that at a certain point, other writers would have been better off writing and acknowledging that it’s less of a moral issue than a pain issue and actually delving into that emotional pain and potential for growth, instead of just, you know, this endless resurrection of “why not kill the Joker” discourse.
YES. I think that this is one of the places where “can’t break the status quo” really becomes an impediment to quality character development. I understand why DC can’t just have Batman forgive Red Hood and also can’t just have Batman stash Red Hood in prison — either one would be a major road bump for fellow writers — but that also leaves the characters in a perpetual state of bickering over Joker without resolution. Sometimes Bruce and Jason’s estrangement is written in a way that feels painful and interesting and well-characterized, but that mostly seems to occur when they’re not directly interacting with each other.
But yeah, “Why doesn’t Batman just kill the Joker?” is not the major logical fallacy (e.g. “Why not ride eagles to Mordor?”) that a lot of fans seem to think it is.
Since the wording is a bit unclear are you saying that that Batman killing the Joker is or isn’t like the eagles, because there are multiple good reasons for not riding the eagles.
You’re right, my intent is unclear. I’m actually not on the side of “the Fellowship should’ve ridden eagles to Mordor” OR on the side of “the Fellowship shouldn’t have”. I’m of the opinion that the debate itself is interesting fandom fuel, not in the least because it seems to be something people genuinely enjoy arguing about (and without the nastiness of a ship war).
However, when it comes to “should Batman kill the Joker?” and/or “does Red Hood have a point?”, I don’t find the debate interesting or fruitful. There are metatextual reasons Joker can’t die, there are real-world reasons that killing people (even ones who commit crimes) is frowned upon, and so I don’t think that that can of worms is worth diving into. And it risks making the heroes look incompetent or hypocritical to ask the question at all.
Recently I have been watching Fullmetal Alchemist and I've bumped into some memes about the best and worst dads in anime. How would you sort out the best and worst dads in the Animorphs universe?
Walter. He’s so kind and goofy and supportive with Cassie. He’s the ideal sort of dad who both gives his kid lots of space to grow up in her own way, but is also willing to talk about whatever might be bothering her.
Steve. We know he’s very sweet and forgiving almost to a fault, patient with kids and bratty adults alike. Loses a point for responding to Tom’s personality swap in #1 with “sooomebody’s got a giiiiiirrrllfriiieend” because that is not the way to get your teenager to open up to you about dating or alien invasions.
Noorlin. We don’t know much about him — he’s got one scene in #8 — but he seems like he’s doing his best to support Ax during that single Skype call. Loses a point for jumping instantly to “you know you gotta kill Visser Three” upon learning that one of his kids is dead and the other is marooned, but overall seems solid.
[space left intentionally blank to separate the good dads further from the crap ones, because tbh none of them are mediocre]
Elfangor. Look, I get that most of his separation from Tobias isn’t his fault, but his interaction with his kid consists solely of recruiting said kid into a war that Elfangor himself accidentally started. Not a great look.
Peter. Only ranks above Dan because he eventually gets his shit together, but I’m also unwilling to excuse how long he takes to get his shit together. It’s not his fault that he’s dealing with major shit between Eva’s “death” and meeting Nora, but he nevertheless needs to do a lot more parenting of Marco and a lot less getting parented by Marco. Also, “book-smart man who never bothered to learn how to cook or clean because he’s always had a partner to do it for him” is even less of a good look in the 19damn90s.
Dan. There is some excellent social commentary in Rachel’s parents’ (ex-)marriage around Dan getting 50% of the credit for doing 0.1% of the work. The scene in #7 where Dan brings junk food for dinner to try and bribe his daughters while Naomi rushes home from her extremely challenging job to discover her ex is here to announce that he’s fucking off to some other state and won’t even be around for one weekend a month anymore… that just speaks volumes about their respective parenting. Dan’s not obviously absent like Elfangor, but in many ways his half-assed parenting (including through putting tough emotional decisions on Rachel so he doesn’t have to deal with them himself) is worse than accidental abandonment.
Oh man, that whole scene in #7 is Dan and Naomi’s ex-marriage in microcosm. Dan was supposed to tell his daughters about him moving away the other night when he took them to the circus, but “I guess he forgot.” So he comes over with takeout food and forced cheeriness, and then he avoids the topic until Naomi says, Dan, just get it over with while he smiles sheepishly, “like some little boy caught doing something wrong.” Then when he’s explaining how he’ll need to move to another city, it’s Naomi who specifies A thousand miles away.
Dan wants to be the fun parent and avoid all the tough stuff. He puts Naomi in the position of having to force the issue. Then by asking Rachel to move with him, he’s putting the onus of choice on her instead of really owning his decision to move away. I love that even Jordan is shown to be more parent-like in this scene (telling Sarah not to run on the stairs in a way that sounds just like Naomi) and that all three kids (even Sarah who is maybe 8 years old) realize that something is up with Dan’s wannabe happy family dinner.
YESSS. And Rachel’s whole family dynamic — Jordan being genuinely angry with their dad, Sara just being genuinely happy to see him, Rachel perceiving but forgiving his faults — is so heartbreaking and complex. It’s so easy to sympathize with all three of their perspectives.
We can even sympathize with Dan’s unwillingness to have that hard conversation and upset his daughters. However, that also means that his entire family is getting screwed over by his half-assed parenting. Naomi does 100% of the heavy lifting when it comes to parenting their daughters, while Dan gets to swoop in and give the cool presents or trips and collect 100% of the rewards.
really in my rachel feelings i guess this week! i feel like the last time i thought about this issue i couldn’t remember if rachel’s dad sucked or if i was just assuming he sucked but this is bringing it all back to me now and also much kinder than i am to dan, who i think should get murdered. which, like, the Dan Sucks book is also the grizzly book & the first time rachel rachels out for realsies down in the yeerk pool, which the text is pretty explicit about connecting (someone, marco maybe? says he would vote to go to the ellimist-curated human zoo because everyone is falling apart and mentions that rachel’s using morphing to deal with her feelings), and now i’m thinking about that scene with the creepy older dude in book 2 where rachel morphs elephant to scare him off, and back to: there are times when it makes sense to want to be a monster if it means that you don’t have to be a girl. like yeah yeah yeah the trauma of the war, but also: you already have all this anger and nowhere to put it and nothing you can do with this feeling inside you like you could just fucking kill someone, and then surprise! you actually can. i fucking get that! i have felt that kind of inchoate powerless useless rage, and it sucks! i don’t know what would have happened if someone had given me at 15 the power to turn into a motherfucking grizzly bear, but i’m 100% sure the answer to that would not have been “15 year old me makes really responsible choices about what to do with this.”
I feel like Under the Red Hood would have fine if it was a strictly non-canon "what if" style scenario, but imo the really bad mid-00's Batman arc is War Games
Yep.
Remember that fun phase comics went through during what’s sometimes called the Dark Age, where writers were competing to see how quickly and graphically they could refrigerate women? Brian Michael Bendis was the sole point of light in that otherwise dumpster-fire time, and only Brian Michael Bendis deserves to survive the robot apocalypse.
