I read The Killing Joke three years ago, so I'd like to share my thoughts:
I thought it was a rather good story. I liked how the Joker's backstory was told and then it was muddled when he admits to telling different stories about his past - "the multiple choice". Totally demonstrates his sick sense of humour.
I got to say though; did anyone else get the impression that the events that "supposedly" happened in the Joker's backstory might have had some truth behind it? In the end, Joker looked rather remorseful when Batman tried to offer him a chance for rehabilitation, but he apologetically rejects it because he thought it was too late - as if he knew his crimes were too unforgivable. In this story, I always thought the Joker wanted to be understood so badly about losing his mind after "one bad day" that he believed driving a sane man like Gordon crazy would get people to see where he was coming from. I guess one could say that Batman and Joker are two opposites of each other despite
both having similar tragedies; the former endures his grief over the loss of parents but takes it as a motivation to fight off crime for the good of the city, the latter loses his mind completely and tries to demonstrate his point about how worthless life is.
One thing that bothered me about this book though is the violence. I've always had a hard time getting through the Joker's assault on Barbara Gordon, and even the assault on Commissioner Gordon at the theme park where he had to endure enlarged photographs of his bloodied, naked daughter. Ugh. Frank Miller, ear your heart out. Even Alan Moore admits to feeling uncomfortable with it.
Except for the more graphic pages, I always thought The Killing Joke was a fairly pedestrian story redeemed mostly by the art. I don't think Moore was firing on all cylinders when he wrote it (as compared to Watchmen, his masterpiece).
Also, I never bought the "multiple choice" thing. It feels a lot like a copout. Sh!+ or get off the pot. Don't show an origin that was canon for decades and then suggest it might not be true. Either it is or it isn't. Make up your mind.
Still, the editors didn't sweep TKJ under the rug. It "happened", it gave us Oracle (although Babs is feeling better these days, I guess) and some other good stories. But part of me can't help but feel it's exemplary of that 80's and 90's darkness decadence stereotype.
But I still enjoy it because Marvel has literally published nothing of such historical impact and my inner DC guy will always love rubbing it in.
'Falling into the acid' is my 100 per cent favoured Joker origin. And it's the only one I'll take. B89 bettered TKJ but making him a mobster. There's his grounding in being a street smart, etc. In my opinion The Joker absolutely knows his origin and the 'forgetful' histories angle is all a ruse.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 7 Apr 2013, 06:45'Falling into the acid' is my 100 per cent favoured Joker origin. And it's the only one I'll take. B89 bettered TKJ but making him a mobster. There's his grounding in being a street smart, etc. In my opinion The Joker absolutely knows his origin and the 'forgetful' histories angle is all a ruse.
The mobster and failed comedian both work for me. The mobster thing for the reasons you mention; the failed comedian for the role it continues to play in his psychology (ie, he kills everybody who doesn't get the joke... which is everybody because he's a crap comedian).
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 7 Apr 2013, 06:45
'Falling into the acid' is my 100 per cent favoured Joker origin. And it's the only one I'll take. B89 bettered TKJ but making him a mobster. There's his grounding in being a street smart, etc. In my opinion The Joker absolutely knows his origin and the 'forgetful' histories angle is all a ruse.
I heard somebody in a podcast who reviewed B89 was saying the best thing about the Jack Napier backstory was making him as Grissom's right hand man made it believable that he could take over the criminal empire. As opposed to being a criminal who appears out of nowhere but suddenly gains control of all these henchmen working for him.
Nonetheless I always thought, as Colors suggested, the Joker also works well as a psychopath who murders people out of vanity; a kind of psycho who gets upset when somebody who steals his spotlight.
The comedian angle can easily be tied into the mobster, too. Someone who has a unique sense of humour from the outset, but lets it rip once transformed. It kills two birds with one stone.
^ Good point. No reason why it has to be one or the other.
Anyway, I find it interesting to read Moore criticizing his own work; regards The Killing Joke rather lowly:
Quote"I don't think it's a very good book. It's not saying anything very interesting."
QuoteUltimately, at the end of the day, The Killing Joke is a story about Batman and the Joker; it isn't about anything that you're ever going to encounter in real life, because Batman and the Joker are not like any human beings that have ever lived. So there's no important human information being imparted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Killing_Joke#Critical_reception_and_legacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Killing_Joke#Critical_reception_and_legacy)
Then again, I've yet to hear anything positive from this guy. He makes me wonder if there's anything he does like.
If you wrote what you thought were some decent comics but everybody treated you like Jesus for having written them, you have two options:
01- Accept their borderline worship as proof of your epic splendor (see people like Mark Millar for more on this).
02- Develop an unnecessarily critical (borderline hostile) opinion of your books to balance it out, acquainted as you are with your and their shortcomings and weaknesses... which I think is what Moore has chosen to do.
The Killing Joke is highly overrated in my opinion. When I was a teenager I used to think Moore was brilliant. But I find the older I get the more critical I am towards his work. Some of his writing – in particular his early stories for the Doctor Who comics, 2000 AD (The Ballad of Halo Jones, Future Shocks, etc) and the excellent Watchmen – are worthy of the praise they receive. But a lot of his stuff – V for Vendetta, The Killing Joke and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, to name a few – I find grossly overrated. But that's just my opinion.
The Killing Joke is typical of Moore's revisionist technique of appropriating other writers' creations and subjecting them to his own brand of nihilistic cynicism (the most offensive example of this being his graphic novel Lost Girls). One thing modern editors and critics are very wary of is writers who use violence against women, and particularly sexual violence, as a cheap plot device to get an emotional response from their reader. Nowadays it's regarded as bad writing 101, but Moore did it all the time back in the eighties and nineties. Supergirl gets assaulted and mutilated in 'For the Man Who Has Everything', Mina Harker gets sexually assaulted in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and of course we all know what happens to Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke. There's a nasty vein of misogyny running through much of Moore's work that I find extremely distasteful. So I can't honestly say I'm a fan of his, even though admitting as much is tantamount to heresy in the comic book community.
However I'll give credit where credit's due, and Moore did write a very good Batman story called 'Mortal Clay' in Batman Annual #11 (1987).
(http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp42/silver-nemsis/batmanannual11_zpsdf4d62d6.jpg)
It's one of the best Clayface stories ever written, but sadly tends to get overshadowed by TKJ. It also has some striking parallels with Tim Burton's music video for The Killers song 'Here With Me'. The comic came out in 1987, around the time Burton was prepping his Batman movie. And we know Burton was a fan of Moore's work, so it doesn't seem too improbable that he might have read this story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SxTyvOixJA
A few similarities:
• The protagonist projecting his love for a real woman onto a lifeless mannequin
• Themes of possessiveness, obsession and unrequited love
• The protagonist stealing the mannequin and taking it back to his lair
• The scene of them sitting opposite one another at a dining table
• The wax motif; the Preston Payne Clayface resembled a melted candle and often set up base in abandoned wax museums
According to Grant Morrison, Batman kills the Joker at the end of this book. ???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OPUsWxYz2U
I've never heard about this interpretation until now. It actually makes me appreciate the book a bit more.
I had heard about this from a couple fans before but never put much stock into until I heard Morrison's interpretation and explanation.
Still, I don't think this is actually how Moore intended it.
This is apparently the last page of Alan Moore's script, which says that Batman and Joker are "holding each other up" from the laughter. Perhaps Brian Bolland wanted a more ambiguous interpretation when he drew it:
http://chrisroberson.tumblr.com/image/58459118076
Richard Starkings, the comic's letterer, had this to say on the matter:
https://twitter.com/Comicraft/status/368533530826915841/photo/1
Even if you do read it that way, I think the death of Joker in The Dark Knight Returns is far superior. There, Batman nearly loses it, but holds back from going all the way. Joker's disappointed, but gets the last laugh by finishing the job on himself to frame him. It feels very much in-character for things to end that way.
Here, if you read that Batman kills Joker, then the Joker essentially wins and is proven right. It does take one day for a man to lose his sanity. But it's not his original target, Gordon, who does it. It's Batman.
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Mon, 8 Apr 2013, 17:03
The Killing Joke is highly overrated in my opinion. When I was a teenager I used to think Moore was brilliant. But I find the older I get the more critical I am towards his work. Some of his writing – in particular his early stories for the Doctor Who comics, 2000 AD (The Ballad of Halo Jones, Future Shocks, etc) and the excellent Watchmen – are worthy of the praise they receive. But a lot of his stuff – V for Vendetta, The Killing Joke and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, to name a few – I find grossly overrated. But that's just my opinion.
The Killing Joke is typical of Moore's revisionist technique of appropriating other writers' creations and subjecting them to his own brand of nihilistic cynicism (the most offensive example of this being his graphic novel Lost Girls). One thing modern editors and critics are very wary of is writers who use violence against women, and particularly sexual violence, as a cheap plot device to get an emotional response from their reader. Nowadays it's regarded as bad writing 101, but Moore did it all the time back in the eighties and nineties. Supergirl gets assaulted and mutilated in 'For the Man Who Has Everything', Mina Harker gets sexually assaulted in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and of course we all know what happens to Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke. There's a nasty vein of misogyny running through much of Moore's work that I find extremely distasteful. So I can't honestly say I'm a fan of his, even though admitting as much is tantamount to heresy in the comic book community.
NO. One can accuse Moore of being several things, and one can like or dislike his work, but misogyny isn't one of them
[Hasn't this become too much of a modern "double standard"? Violence (in fiction) against (fictional) white males? No one breaks a sweat, it's "normal". Violence (fictional) against (fictional) women, black people etc. The writer must be a mιsogynist, a racist etc. Not saying this isn't the case in some writers, the once great Frank Miller has become a dirty word in many circles, but not everyone falls under this, and certainly not Moore]That said... I know many fans have a problem with Batman sharing a laugh with the Joker, but it sounds weird coming from fans of the Keaton Batman. The Keaton Batman grinned while strapping a bomb on the strongman, before sending him to his death. Could anyone even dream of the "traditional" Batman doing anything of the sort? So, it's not a stretch to see this particular Batman sharing a laugh with a villain... before beating him within an inch of his life, or even killing him, as is Morrison's interpretation. In earlier versions of the Batman Returns script, if I remember right, Batman shares a laugh with the Penguin.
EDIT 2020-10-09(Re-reading this thread to find links to the Moore interviews, I had the misfortune of encountering one of my old posts. Epic facepalm. I am not the same guy. I wish instead of talking and making a fool out of me, I just stuck to doing some other stuff I was fairly good at).
QuoteEven if you do read it that way, I think the death of Joker in The Dark Knight Returns is far superior. There, Batman nearly loses it, but holds back from going all the way. Joker's disappointed, but gets the last laugh by finishing the job on himself to frame him. It feels very much in-character for things to end that way.
Here, if you read that Batman kills Joker, then the Joker essentially wins and is proven right. It does take one day for a man to lose his sanity. But it's not his original target, Gordon, who does it. It's Batman.
Those are all good points. But you could also argue that the Joker won in The Dark Knight Returns. After all, Batman did snap his neck. Ok, the Joker twisted it the final fraction of an inch. But the fact Batman had wounded him severely enough that he was able to do that still represents an infraction of Batman's usual moral code.
If I run someone over in my car and the victim survives, but dies several minutes later after attempting to move out of the road, am I not still responsible for that person's death? After all, I wounded them and placed them in that vulnerable position in the first place. By the same logic I would argue that Batman essentially did kill the Joker at the end of The Dark Knight Returns.
But I agree that the ending of The Dark Knight Returns is far more satisfying. It's a better book in general IMO.
QuoteNO. One can accuse Moore of being several things, and one can like or dislike his work, but misogyny isn't one of them.
I'm not for one instant calling Moore a misogynist, and I haven't accused him of being one anywhere in this thread. I'm highlighting his predilection for using sexual violence against women as a plot device in his writing. And that plot device – an example of what Gail Simone termed the "Woman in the Refrigerator" trope – is inherently misogynistic. I don't care how critically acclaimed Moore is, he's not above criticism. And this is one aspect of his work that I personally find distasteful.
• In V for Vendetta two policemen attempt to rape Evey
• Avril is sexually assaulted in Miracleman
• In Watchmen the Comedian sexually assaults Sally Jupiter
• In 'For the Man Who Has Everything' Supergirl is assaulted and mutilated by a gang of men
• When questioned about possible sexual overtones of the Joker's assault on Barbara Gordon in The Killing Joke, Moore outlined his own interpretation of the sequence as concluding with the Joker raping Barbara using her bullet wound as an entry hole
• In The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Mina Harker is sexually assaulted (more than once, as I recall), the girls in the boarding school where Griffin hides are repeatedly raped, and Pollyanna Whittier is raped and impregnated by the Invisible Man
• I haven't read his pornographic book Lost Girls (and I don't intend to), but apparently it contains multiple examples of rape
• From Hell also features numerous examples of rape
• Agent Brears is raped several times in Neonomicon
These are just a few instances of Moore using sexual violence against women for dramatic effect in his writing. I'm sure there are many other examples, but there are enough listed here to illustrate the presence of an observable trend; one which is symptomatic of a broader pattern in comic book literature as a medium. And I'm by no means the first person to notice it. Grant Morrison commented on it during an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine back in 2011:
Quote"I was reading some Alan Moore Marvelman for some reason today. I found one in the back there and I couldn't believe. I pick it up and there are f***ing two rapes in it and I suddenly think how many times has somebody been raped in an Alan Moore story? And I couldn't find a single one where someone wasn't raped except for Tom Strong, which I believe was a pastiche."
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/grant-morrison-on-the-death-of-comics-20110822
QuoteHasn't this become too much of a modern "double standard"?
If I haven't already made this clear then I apologise, but I'm talking specifically about
sexual violence here, not violence in general. It would be a double standard if there was an acceptable trend for showing men being sexually assaulted in comics. However no such comparable pattern exists. If anything, the double standard lies in the acceptability of depicting sexual violence against women but not against men. So in that sense, yes, there is a double standard. And that's precisely what I'm criticising.
In Moore's defence, I'll acknowledge that he is one of the few comic writers to have portrayed sexual violence against men (Miracleman, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). But the ratio between sexual violence against men and sexual violence against women is grossly unbalanced, both in Moore's work and in comic books in general. And it's not just Moore. Mark Millar's also been heavily criticised for his portrayal of rape and violence against women. I haven't read an awful lot of his work, so I can't really comment on that. But it's certainly a regrettable trend that many critics have identified in the medium.
That's not to say that rape isn't a theme that should be addressed in literature, provided of course that it's sensitively and meaningfully contextualised. But more often than not rape and violence against women are used as a cheap device for eliciting an emotional reaction from the reader. And this is particularly true in comics. Check the submission guidelines for almost any literary magazine and there's a good chance you'll find a word of warning on this very subject. Novice writers, particularly untalented ones, frequently use sexual violence against women as a lazy hook; not to sensitively explore the issue, but to shock the reader, to give a female character a traumatic back story, or incite animosity between the male hero and the villain. It's bad writing, plain and simple. And Moore is as guilty as anyone of popularising the trend. He's not the only guilty party, but he's one of the most prolific offenders and has extended this pattern into his most recent work.
Getting back to the topic at hand – The Killing Joke. Was the assault on Barbara Gordon – and according to Moore it was indeed a sexual assault – featured as a way of exploring the psychologically damaging effect such attacks have on women, or was it used as a plot device to shock the reader and create tension between the male characters? I would argue it was the latter. Moore doesn't explore the traumatic effect the attack has on Barbara. Instead he shifts focus onto the male characters and shows how the attack affects them. He uses Barbara as a plot device, and her suitability for that role is dictated by the fact she is female. They would never have used James Gordon Jr. or any other male character in a similar context. Instead it is a plot device that specifically plays upon female victimisation at the hands of a male aggressor. And that is why it's misogynistic.
Once again, I must clarify that I'm not calling Moore himself a misogynist. I'm not judging him, only his work.
QuoteNot saying this isn't the case in some writers, the once great Frank Miller has become a dirty word in many circles, but not everyone falls under this, and certainly not Moore
Why should Miller be subjected to objective criticism and not Moore? We can criticise Miller for depicting almost every female character as a prostitute, so why can't we chastise Moore for depicting so many of his female characters as victims of male sexual aggression?
Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 18 Aug 2013, 23:06
QuoteEven if you do read it that way, I think the death of Joker in The Dark Knight Returns is far superior. There, Batman nearly loses it, but holds back from going all the way. Joker's disappointed, but gets the last laugh by finishing the job on himself to frame him. It feels very much in-character for things to end that way.
Here, if you read that Batman kills Joker, then the Joker essentially wins and is proven right. It does take one day for a man to lose his sanity. But it's not his original target, Gordon, who does it. It's Batman.
Those are all good points. But you could also argue that the Joker won in The Dark Knight Returns. After all, Batman did snap his neck. Ok, the Joker twisted it the final fraction of an inch. But the fact Batman had wounded him severely enough that he was able to do that still represents an infraction of Batman's usual moral code.
If I run someone over in my car and the victim survives, but dies several minutes later after attempting to move out of the road, am I not still responsible for that person's death? After all, I wounded them and placed them in that vulnerable position in the first place. By the same logic I would argue that Batman essentially did kill the Joker at the end of The Dark Knight Returns.
But I agree that the ending of The Dark Knight Returns is far more satisfying. It's a better book in general IMO.
Very true. Joker in the movie even says, "It doesn't matter now. I win. I made you lose control."
Also notable is that both TDKR and TKJ have their final Batman-Joker scenes set at a carnival, surrounded by water, with the police on their way...
Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sun, 18 Aug 2013, 20:10
That said... I know many fans have a problem with Batman sharing a laugh with the Joker, but it sounds weird coming from fans of the Keaton Batman. The Keaton Batman grinned while strapping a bomb on the strongman, before sending him to his death. Could anyone even dream of the "traditional" Batman doing anything of the sort? So, it's not a stretch to see this particular Batman sharing a laugh with a villain... before beating him within an inch of his life, or even killing him, as is Morrison's interpretation. In earlier versions of the Batman Returns script, if I remember right, Batman shares a laugh with the Penguin.
Indeed, good post. Keaton's Bat also flashed his smile at Napier during the Axis Chemicals scene. I've got no problems with smug confidence, which
is intimidating.
If The Killing Joke does end as Morrison suggests, I wouldn't mind at all. It could be in the spirit of Batman89 if anything, ala when he goes on his rampage after discovering Joker's identity. Batman has had enough and simply does not care about moral rules. Touching Gordon and Barbara was one thing too many. The guy is just a goner no matter what. In the context of Morrison, it's a knowing laugh. Batman's mind clicking into gear with the 'heh' and then laughing at Joker's coming fate. If anything, I think this 'revelation' would make it a stronger one shot hit.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun, 18 Aug 2013, 23:22Also notable is that both TDKR and TKJ have their final Batman-Joker scenes set at a carnival, surrounded by water, with the police on their way...
I'm surprised they've never used the abandoned amusement park setting for the finale of any of the live action movies. They did a variation of it with the Arctic World amusement park in Batman Returns. And Mask of the Phantasm did something similar. But there's never been a live action movie that climaxed with Batman and the Joker fighting in a fairground. I'd imagine Burton could have done something really inventive with that scenario.
I think this article's worth reading on the subject. I agree with it for the most part. While Morrison's interpretation gives the ending more significance, it doesn't quite match up with the context of the story:
http://comicsalliance.com/batman-killing-joke-ending-grant-morrison-alan-moore-brian-bolland-dc/
That said, I'm not sure if I prefer Batman just sharing with a laugh with Joker either, so I guess either interpretation of the ending is a toss-up for me.
I've been thinking about the ending of The Killing Joke recently; or to be more specific, the Joker's supposedly fabricated backstory. There are many people who believe that the Joker's "multiple choice" comment proves that he is an unreliable narrator; the flashbacks we read about were nothing more than figments of his own imagination. Some people argue this proves how Joker is a sick deviant who makes things up for his own amusement, that he was born evil and can never be understood. But I'm not so sure about that.
Joker was still convinced that he suffered a traumatic experience that ruined his life, and spoke how it made him realize how cruel life is and how fragile people are. He correctly assumes that Batman fights crime due to his own personal tragedy, and nearly guesses what drove Batman over the edge to do what he does. He argues to Batman that they're both outcomes of tragedy, commenting "why else would you dress up as a flying rodent".
Now this is the part of the comic where people never seem to talk about, which is strange because it's in the ending.
(http://i.imgur.com/nNl9yng.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/2sKhoV4.jpg)
As the Joker is told that Commissioner Gordon has survived the whole torturous ordeal unscathed, Batman taunts Joker by saying not everybody succumbs to madness, and goes far by suggesting that there must have been something inherently wrong with Joker to mentally break down so easily. But what's even more telling is how Joker looks remorseful as he apologizes and declines Batman's offer for rehabilitation because it's "too late". I think it's a no-brainer that his plan to break Gordon failed, and not only he ruined Jim and Barbara's lives but Joker knows that he'll be hated more than ever. And then the story ends with Joker telling the joke that causes both off them to laugh together.
The Killing Joke made a lot of fans to interpret things very differently because of the vague and conflicting nature of the story. In my opinion, Joker doesn't come across as someone who completely makes up stories about his own past. I think he had a good idea of what happened to him. But if truly doesn't remember, it could be argued at the very least he was so traumatized that it causes him to forget about what really happened to him. My interpretation is that the Joker was a psychotic, yet tragic character who tried to convince himself that he was once an innocent man who fell victim to traumatic circumstances. What makes him so heinous, however, is that he would do whatever it takes ito proves his point about human nature.
Taking the conversation away from the movie and back to the graphic novel, it seems the comic's biggest critic is Alan Moore himself:
https://www.inverse.com/article/14967-alan-moore-now-believes-the-killing-joke-was-melodramatic-not-interesting
It's an interesting point to take, and I wouldn't argue with his points. At least he recognizes the impact that it had, and continues to have, even if he isn't proud of it in retrospect. Aside from the story itself, it seems his influence, more specifically the imitators, is what made Moore regret his work.
It seems his two major critiques are misinterpreting the characters, and adding what he deems to be too much depth for the characters. It's tough to say for sure, but for one thing, Moore was following the trends at the time; Batman had been returning to a more serious place since the sixties, and the Killing Joke made sense in the wake of The Dark Knight Returns and other stories of the time.
A misconception is also that the original stories were meant for kids and not meant to carry any depth. The original stories were fairly adult in content - the violence of the comics was above what could be shown on film at the time. It just so happened that kids became the primary demographic, and the nature of the comics adapted to this (before shifting back). In a way, the characters had depth, although by the time of TKJ, the characters had evolved to the point where they were completely different characters, so Moore may have a point there.
Also, for the repercussions of the Killing Joke, you'd think it would have existed as its own entity like The Dark Knight Returns. I actually may prefer it this way - I see it as existing near the end of the Dark Knight's original run. I also think it leads into the Dark Knight Returns fairly well.
Finally, Alan Moore praises the campy Silver Age, which he inadvertently helped bury in the past. He says it had more creativity, and if he would do another story, he'd do a Silver Age story. That actually sounds awesome, I would love to see Alan Moore revisit Batman, and once again shake up the establishment. He said it himself that current comics always fall back on his formula, so what better way to break up the monotony than to reinvent the character again?
I think people get too bogged down in authorial intent when it comes to TKJ. Did Moore and Bolland intend for Batman to kill the Joker? Or did they intend for Batman to let the Joker live? Either misses the point.
To me, it comes down to whether or not either of those is a defensible interpretation of the story.
Batman starts the book by announcing that someday either he'll kill the Joker or vice versa. The Joker's thesis is all anybody needs is one bad day, one single moment of tragedy, to destroy their grasp on reality. To be transformed into a monster.
The Joker correctly surmises Batman had a bad day once.
The Joker imposes a bad day upon Gordon. He wants the Joker taken in "by the book". Gordon is, apparently, a better man than either Batman or the Joker. But we knew that already, didn't we?
Batman's already broken. Considering the terms on which he began the story ("I'll kill you or you'll kill me"), it's a valid to assume the book will address that conflict and bring some resolution to it.
Considering what the Joker does in the story (shooting Babs, possibly raping her, tormenting Gordon), insane or not, death is a just punishment for him at this point. And Batman's clearly willing to do the job. Certainly the final page lends itself to that interpretation.
If someone wants to view this as Batman killing the Joker, I'm prepared to accept that.
I can definitely see that interpretation... but it doesn't matter to me because the Joker clearly didn't die in continuity and that's what needed to happen after what he did to Babs and Jason. Period. I don't buy that Batman would just let all that stuff go. Not for one second. Batman's stupid "vow" or no, there WILL be blood for things like that.
Yeah, the "official" meaning has been debunked many times, but again, that shouldn't stop a good theory - one that makes sense in the context of the story, and isn't a stretch. The main takeaway was that the Joker failed on turning Gordon; that much we can see by how he wants Joker to be taken in by the book. But perhaps the Joker's torture inflicted on Gordon had a secondary effect on Batman that prompted him to cross a line... Meanwhile, Batman has Joker alone and cornered, who willingly admits he refuses to be "cured." The other ending is more than plausible.
What's everyone's views on the different colorings? I have the Deluxe Edition because it's the most easily available, but I do prefer the original (though Bolland's new coloring seamlessly updates the art and makes it look like a modern comic). You'd think that with Bolland doing the coloring this time around it would be definitive, but it seems to clash with his original intention, as evident by the yellow oval around the Bat-symbol being erased.
Quote from: Slash Man on Tue, 9 Aug 2016, 02:52the yellow oval around the Bat-symbol being erased.
Unforgivable.
Quote from: Slash Man on Tue, 9 Aug 2016, 02:52
What's everyone's views on the different colorings? I have the Deluxe Edition because it's the most easily available, but I do prefer the original (though Bolland's new coloring seamlessly updates the art and makes it look like a modern comic). You'd think that with Bolland doing the coloring this time around it would be definitive, but it seems to clash with his original intention, as evident by the yellow oval around the Bat-symbol being erased.
I like the original
Earlier this year, there was a big backlash over a variant front cover for a Batgirl comic because it featured the Joker smearing a bloody smile over Batgirl's face. What was obviously a homage to The Killing Joke, critics (mainly feminists and social justice warriors) took issue with it because they claimed it was misogynistic.
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/3/17/1426598380568/Batgirl-41-joker-variant--012.jpg)
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/17/dc-comics-pull-batgirl-joker-cover-after-protests
Turns out the cover wasn't approved to publish by the editor (or maybe he said that to save face from the backlash), and the cover was described as especially distasteful because it was made for a special edition issue for Batgirl.
While I can understand that paying a homage to a story featuring Batgirl's darkest hour on the character's own comic book was quite dumb, I have an issue with the way people have reacted to this cover. For instance, Mark Waid had apparently blocked someone on Twitter because the person in question had the cover as his wallpaper. Basically, Waid is implying the guy he had blocked is sexist.
https://twitter.com/MarkWaid/status/591241805351374848
Frankly, I find this reaction by Waid, and many others who share his opinion, to be over the top. Yeah, Joker shooting and torturing Barbara is horrible and uneasy to digest, but does that mean someone who likes The Killing Joke as a story is a misogynist? Because that's the message I'm getting. If someone, for example, liked A Clockwork Orange or Se7en and has posters of both films on their wall, does that make them a nihilistic psychopath who enjoys taking their anger out on men and women? Do the creators themselves agree with the mindset of the perpetrator committing the crime in the story they're telling? I don't think so, as you can see by Alan Moore's feedback of his own comic.
Where exactly do you draw the line when it comes to applying morals in fiction anyway? I say if you're going to start kicking up a fuss about what's "right and wrong", how about we apply the same standard to everything else and stop glorifying violence altogether? How about we stop talking about what an awesome villain the Joker is because he promotes psychopathy and murder (then again, I'm tempted in favour of this if people will finally shut up about TDK's Joker, hehe), or stop our obsession over Batman because he is a vigilante maniac who enjoys kicking the sh*t out villains? I used to be sympathetic towards censorship, but nowadays, EVERYTHING seems to be offensive. And usually, those who are "offended" tend to be hypocrites anyway.
Bloody hell.
For creators of mainstream entertainment (movies, music and comics) to slander broad segments of their fan base with defamatory and unfounded tags is just baffling. It doesn't make any sense to me. Are they in the business of being profitable? Where do these people get off? Thankfully though, people are waking up to these games and are thinking for themselves. And speaking out about it. If the words racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynist were removed from the English language, these SJWs would literally be speechless. It's all they have. Let's just enjoy entertainment on our own terms for crying out loud.
Off-topic: nothing surprises me anymore. If 2016 has taught me anything, it is to be suspicious of people's agendas. As cynical as this will sound, the "moral compass" comes across as fake outrage just so most people can feel good about themselves.
I read a blog where a BvS fan tore apart a YouTube critic's negative review of BvS, and one of the points why the critic hated the film was because it demonstrated "toxic masculinity" during the Batman vs Superman fight scene. Why? Because of Batman's "you're not brave. Men are brave" line. Because men are diabolical in nature, and anything referring to men is sexist against women, right?
It turned out that critic is a massive SJW who is a "philosophy" graduate student. Education standards must be really low nowadays.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 7 Dec 2016, 11:47Earlier this year, there was a big backlash over a variant front cover for a Batgirl comic because it featured the Joker smearing a bloody smile over Batgirl's face. What was obviously a homage to The Killing Joke, critics (mainly feminists and social justice warriors) took issue with it because they claimed it was misogynistic.
I'm trying to figure out how anything can be called "misogynistic" or "sexist" anymore. We keep being told that one's
sex "gender" is a social construct. Frankly I don't buy that because most of us are born either with a male's internal plumbing or a female's internal plumbing. But whatever, #1 it's all supposed to be in our minds and #2 we're all equal so it shouldn't matter anyway.
Okay, fair enough.
If those are the premises from which we're all supposed to begin, how can anything be "misogynistic"? The Joker would presumably treat a man the same way he is a woman. If the egalitarianism that's been shoved down our throats is coherent and logical, surely violence towards women is no more and no less objectionable than violence towards men, right? If women are equal to (which seems to mean "the same as") men, why is the depiction of violence against them a negative?
And if the depiction of violence itself is negative, well, let's enforce that equally. Trust me, entertainment media will all fold overnight if we did.
Mind you, I love (and am borderline obsessed with) Mark Waid's work but as a person he's completely FOS so there's a lot to be said for ignoring his public statements, the ninny.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 7 Dec 2016, 12:35I read a blog where a BvS fan tore apart a YouTube critic's negative review of BvS, and one of the points why the critic hated the film was because it demonstrated "toxic masculinity" during the Batman vs Superman fight scene. Why? Because of Batman's "you're not brave. Men are brave" line. Because men are diabolical in nature, and anything referring to men is sexist against women, right?
It turned out that critic is a massive SJW who is a "philosophy" graduate student. Education standards must be really low nowadays.
(http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1.jpg)
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 7 Dec 2016, 16:19
I love (and am borderline obsessed with) Mark Waid's work but as a person he's completely FOS so there's a lot to be said for ignoring his public statements, the ninny.
You're not going to like what I'm going to say, but after reading more of Waid's opinions on Twitter, I've decided that I'm going to boycott his work from now on.
I've always followed the principle in separating the person from their art, but Waid's conduct is quite despicable and really soured his name for me. I never thought this could ever happen, but his attitude too off-putting. I can't respect anyone who instantly labels somebody a bigot just because they share a different opinion.
Not to mention the fact the idiot declared that all superheroes are SJWs, as if he's saying if you don't agree with his political views, you're a bigot. That, and the fact that he still complains about MOS mainly because Superman kills a genocidal maniac as if Clark's moral compass is broken. And yet, Waid regards TDK as one of the best films he's ever seen despite Batman spends the entire time refusing to kill a maniac - only to kill another in the last five minutes.
No Mark, if there's anybody whose moral compass is broken, it's yours.
A YouTuber who goes by the name Capn Cummings made a video criticising Gail Simone's criticism of The Killing Joke. His reasoning that dismissing the comic for "demeaning" female character does a great disservice to Barbara Gordon's character development that came afterwards, as well as downplaying the other Batgirls that came soon after.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_Z66ki1M9s
Capn Cummings makes a great point that Barbara wasn't the only Gordon who was victimised. Anybody can dislike the comic all they want, but to claim The Killing Joke was allowed to exist because nobody cared about women is just trying enforce a cheap feminist agenda. Never mind that it completely ignores what the story was about.
Well I think Moore himself has said he shouldn't have gone as far with the violence and sexualized-violence in a Batman story, the editors should have stopped him from crippling Barbara, at least they shouldn't have been so indifferent. That could just be the editors being cavalier about supporting characters rather than female characters but it's unclear.
I like that the comic is very irreverent to taboos and conventions but that understandably makes it controversial.
Quote from: Andrew on Thu, 6 Sep 2018, 23:50
Well I think Moore himself has said he shouldn't have gone as far with the violence and sexualized-violence in a Batman story, the editors should have stopped him from crippling Barbara, at least they shouldn't have been so indifferent. That could just be the editors being cavalier about supporting characters rather than female characters but it's unclear.
I like that the comic is very irreverent to taboos and conventions but that understandably makes it controversial.
I'll defend that one small aspect of TKJ. It's easy with today's freakishly sensitive standards to criticize the people involved with making the comic.
But back in the 80's, Moore all but walked on water. After Swamp Thing, V For Vendetta and Watchmen, nobody was likely to challenge Moore on just about anything. So when Moore turns in something like TKJ, an otherwise mediocre story which is drenched in gratuitous violence... well, his other comics sold a mint so why won't this one?
I'm not defending TKJ. I've never been overly fond of it. But I think I understand the circumstances which allowed it to come into existence in the first place and I'll defend those circumstances.
Quote from: Andrew on Thu, 6 Sep 2018, 23:50
Well I think Moore himself has said he shouldn't have gone as far with the violence and sexualized-violence in a Batman story, the editors should have stopped him from crippling Barbara, at least they shouldn't have been so indifferent. That could just be the editors being cavalier about supporting characters rather than female characters but it's unclear.
I like that the comic is very irreverent to taboos and conventions but that understandably makes it controversial.
I could've done without the sexualised violence. It's not the kind of subject I want to read in a comic and it's only added for unnecessary shock value, which is something I never liked about TKJ.
But I'm not too bothered over the crippling of Barbara Gordon. It's not as if it diminished her as a character either; as a matter of fact, a pop culture writer by the name of Jill Pantozzi says she relates to Barbara as Oracle the most because of she shares the same disability, and I have no doubt that other comic book readers with similar disabilities share that sentiment. It also allowed the introduction of new characters taking the Batgirl mantle, as I said before. Like it or not, there is a silver lining to that scene in TKJ.
Once again, I'm not very comfortable to read a comic book that has sexual violence. But I think thecolorsblend once made a good point to suggest a slippery slope if comics writers start avoiding any scenario where a female character is in peril just for the sake not being called a misogynist. If No Man's Land came out today, critics would be complaining about the Huntress being violently shot by the Joker, and Joker shooting Sarah Essen to death towards the end of the story. If it's wrong to inflict
any sort violence against women, the same standards might as well be applied to men then. And if that's the case, we'd never get stories like A Death in the Family or Batman comics at all.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 9 Sep 2018, 09:27But I'm not too bothered over the crippling of Barbara Gordon. It's not as if it diminished her as a character either; as a matter of fact, a pop culture writer by the name of Jill Pantozzi says she relates to Barbara as Oracle the most because of she shares the same disability, and I have no doubt that other comic book readers with similar disabilities share that sentiment. It also allowed the introduction of new characters taking the Batgirl mantle, as I said before. Like it or not, there is a silver lining to that scene in TKJ.
Those are post-hoc additions though. Babs as Oracle happened in large part because nothing much had been done with the character since TKJ.
When Moore crippled Babs in TKJ, that was the end of line for him. Other writers came along later and gave her a new direction. The end result was fantastic... but it doesn't change the fact that Moore had no such thing in mind when he wrote what he did.
A strong visual reference to The Killing Joke with this Three Jokers art.
https://www.newsarama.com/49339-all-batman-three-jokers-art.html#s3
I like that art. Not many comic projects have excited me in recent times, but this one does. It's a ludicrous concept, such as Under The Red Hood's resurrection of Jason Todd. But I let that slide given the significant emotional power such stories bring. The drama of the situation makes it real. I'll be keeping a close eye on this.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 11 Mar 2020, 06:24
A strong visual reference to The Killing Joke with this Three Jokers art.
https://www.newsarama.com/49339-all-batman-three-jokers-art.html#s3
I like that art. Not many comic projects have excited me in recent times, but this one does. It's a ludicrous concept, such as Under The Red Hood's resurrection of Jason Todd. But I let that slide given the significant emotional power such stories bring. The drama of the situation makes it real. I'll be keeping a close eye on this.
DC brought TKJ into continuity and I think they've regretted it ever since. They've tried on a few occasions to wash Jason and Babs blood off his hands. This seems like another attempt to do so.
That doesn't mean it's a bad idea though.
Alan Moore hosted a Q&A session on Goodreads.com some time ago, and it appears he debunks the theory that Batman killed the Joker at the end of TKJ.
Quote from: Alan Moore
for the record, my intention at the end of that book was to have the two characters simply experiencing a brief moment of lucidity in their ongoing very weird and probably fatal relationship with each other, reaching a moment where they both perceive the hell that they are in, and can only laugh at their preposterous situation. A similar chuckle is shared by the doomed couple at the end of the remarkable Jim Thompson's original novel, The Getaway.
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/author/3961.Alan_Moore/questions
It doesn't say what the date was when he wrote this. But judging by how the question refers to the animated film was getting made, my guess is this happened four or five years ago. You can find the comment for yourself if you select "Oldest" on the Sort by drop down menu on the link above.
Speaking of the ending, I look at the last couple of shots of the raindrops hitting the puddle on the ground as Batman and Joker are laughing, and now I've got the first five lines of Purple Rain stuck in my head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Y1gohk5-A
Yeah, I've got a twisted sense of humour. :-[
So what does the title "The Killing Joke" mean? It makes no sense to me, unless Batman killed him in the end.
Am I missing/overlooking something?
Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 20 May 2020, 00:19
So what does the title "The Killing Joke" mean? It makes no sense to me, unless Batman killed him in the end.
Am I missing/overlooking something?
I'm of two minds about the ending. The title would have more direct meaning if Batman strangled the Joker, after he uttered his last ever joke. But then we have this line from Gordon: "I want him brought in...and I want him brought in by the book! By the book you hear, We have to show him! We have to show him our way works!"
I think this broadcasts the intent of not just Gordon, but the comic itself. Batman doesn't snap after tragedy, even though he'd like to. The Killing Joke could therefore be that Batman doesn't kill his opponent even after all that has been inflicted, and mixed in with the Joker's belief life itself is a joke.
Batman and the Joker will kill each other in the end. Pretending otherwise is a joke.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 20 May 2020, 02:44
Batman and the Joker will kill each other in the end. Pretending otherwise is a joke.
Absolutely. TKJ references that with the "perhaps you'll kill me, perhaps I'll kill you, perhaps sooner, perhaps later" commentary. I think the Joker's death at the very least is an accepted eventuality, with TDK Returns and Beyond being two key examples. TDK Returns satisfies my cravings for such a scene the most, because it represents an accumulation of an entire career's worth of restraint falling away in a moment of desperation. Batman is getting stabbed repeatedly, he's bleeding out and thus the Joker forces the issue. It really works well.
I got to be honest, as eerie as the last few panels were, I was never really convinced that Batman killed the Joker in the end. For the interpretation to work, Batman's body language would have to appear more aggressive - posing in a position where one could perceive he is about to attack the Joker. That wasn't the case here. The only thing we see him doing is sharing a laugh. The laughter may have ended rather abruptly once the police siren plays in the background, but it's not enough to interpret that Batman had finally put the Joker down for good.
When you consider that DC Comics would soon incorporate TKJ as a mainstay of Batman continuity, I find it hard to believe they'd approve the Joker getting killed in the end. As far as I can tell, Brian Bolland seems to encourage the belief that the ending is ambiguous, going by reading his foreword in the Deluxe Edition. But Alan Moore made it quite clear that wasn't what he intended.
Plus, Richard Starkings - the letterer who worked on TKJ - also dismissed the theory.
Quote from: Richard Starkings
No. They are laughing. Batman is laughing so hard he leans on the Joker for support. The End.
Brian described it to me that way when this craziness first came up in 1986.
http://www.unleashthefanboy.com/comics/batman-doesnt-kill-joker-in-the-killing-jok/68199
For what it's worth, this is the official script that describes the last moments of the book, and it doesn't show any hints of Batman killing the Joker.
(https://www.nerdspan.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Killing_Joke_last_page.jpg)
It may be a fun theory to talk about it, but judging by the feedback from some of the creators who worked on the book and the lack of context to support the interpretation.