The problem with The Killing Joke and of Shock-Value as an Indicator of a Story's Quality
I was mentally writing this last night and it sounded really good in my head but it's morning now and I'm foggy and don't even know if I can reconnect with the things I was thinking.
I'll give it a go.
I think the biggest problem with The Killing Joke is that it is the standard by which all other Joker stories are judged.
These days, the book largely coasts on its legend. New fans, whether specific-Joker or general-Batman, or both, are told: "Get The Killing Joke. It's the BEST Batman story ever! Or at least the BEST Joker story ever! There's nothing else like it or that can equal it!"
This sets fans up with not only an expectation but a sense of initiation, once they've got the book and have read it. They're 'in' the club now, they know what it's all about and they then take up the role themselves, guiding other new fans to this sacred text which will enlighten them for all the ages in the ways of Joker-stories.
It also sets up an unfortunate sense of elitism. Because TKJ is treated so much like the Bible of Joker stories, and everyone froths at the mouth over it, it's difficult to not like it without feeling like you don't 'get it'. So long and so loudly has it been lauded that I really believe this reputation in a way cultivates people's reaction to it. It is difficult to enter the fandom without almost immediately hearing about it in effusive praise and I think this attitude works on a subconscious level in many ways.
I mean, it's practically sacrosanct. Criticism of it is few and far between and often shouted down, if not outright ignored. So conflated has it become with its own legend that many fans also take it as Gospel Truth, patently ignoring the fact Moore himself did not intend it to be canon, and Joker himself states in TKJ that he's not sure about his past and is constantly remembering it in different ways.
If a fan wants to personally take on that particular history presented in TKJ as their canon, that's one thing. To state it to others as the canon, is another and it's something I see constantly done. Not with any real intent of misleading - just with a genuine misunderstanding of what the book's about. Again, this comes back to the book's legend and status within the world of Western comics. It is at the point where the content of the book is often almost ignored in favour of its reputation and prestige.
Long-time fans spend a great deal of time mooning over TKJ and its merits and counting it as the ultimate Joker story.
Apart from creating a sacred aura around the story that is difficult to overcome, this is terribly, terribly unfair to the myriad of other wonderful Joker stories that exist.
Because no major Joker story can now be released without being compared back to TKJ.
This is problematic on many levels. Firstly, TKJ is a very flawed work, if a wonderful one.
Second, it's its own beast, and should be. It's a very particular type of story that was told in a particular time and very much reflects that. While its influence should be acknowledged, its place in history should be accepted - there should not be this attitude that it represents the pinnacle of Joker-stories and that can never be contravened.
Thirdly, it makes it difficult for new writers to innovate and earn the same level of respect because it would be almost impossible to detach from the awareness that what they're writing is going to be compared to a story twenty years old, written in a whole other era and with a whole other purpose in mind. Some writers have taken the easy route and followed the TKJ model. Some have gone in another direction. Both have had the misfortune of having fans and reviewers alike go: "Good, but not as good as The Killing Joke".
Fourthly, DC Comics themselves take an active part in promoting the legend of TKJ and of touting it as numero uno in Joker-lore, reinforcing these ideas in readers' minds.
Finally, so sacred has TKJ become, that there is a fandom-wide reluctance to let go of it. Nothing can replace or exceed it. Fans are unwilling to concede another story might be better, or more cohesive or more interesting or exciting. TKJ partially represents an entire shift in the mindset of comics and it casts a very long, very black shadow to this day.
Rather than new Joker stories being judged on their own merits, they're always connected back to TKJ. Many fans love the sympathetic edge given to The Joker in this story, which is something I really feel participates in people's dogged connection to it. So it also becomes a matter of, in other stories, Joker being too 'inhuman'. Too 'unlikeable'. They like their Joker-woobies.
And this in itself is problematic because it does allow people to then ignore the absolute hideousness of what Joker does in the story. Oh sure, people acknowledge it, even revel in it to a degree - but somehow, on some level, it is allowed by the horrible life Mistah J recalls for himself, despite the fact that might just be the fevered imaginings of a diseased mind.
All this said, I myself have a sincere emotional attachment to TKJ. I have mention before, I still, to this day, get teary-eyed every time I read it. I am working through the process of ceasing to view other Joker stories through the lens of TKJ and of acknowledging its flaws and fallibles. This rant was partially inspired by a variety of comments I have seen all over the internet this week alone about TKJ Joker's history being canon, the story being the greatest, a variety of new fans accepting the TKJ gospel without question and DC's latest exploitive selling line in relation to the new graphic novel due for release in September.
I don't want another Killing Joke, though. It stands alone, as all stories should. I do want something fresh, exciting and interesting, though. But I also want something that is true to the character. That exemplifies exactly what it is that makes him arguably the greatest villain in fiction. Which brings me to my other rant for the day.
And that is the use of shock-value and flash blinding readers to the actual quality of the story.
I myself have been very guilty of this in the past. So long as Mistah J was doing the most awful, outrageous, extreme things possible, I didn't always stop to think about whether this actually made the story good.
There is this unfortunate attitude in fandom that just because something might be 'gritty' or 'realistic' or 'outrageous' this somehow is equivalent to being 'good'.
Take Morrison's latest imagining of the Joker, for example. Because he's got a scarred face, is covered in blood and enigmatically playing cards, people are going WOW this is how the Joker SHOULD be! This is AWESOME! This is SCARY!
It's pretentious twaddle, is what it is. It's glamour; cheap and trite and designed to suck people in.
Now, I like Serious House as much as the next person. And his vision of Joker as an omnipotent trickster god worked well within the context of that story, detached from the rest of canon. Sure, the Jean-Paul cone-breasted corset would've been pretty funny, although it wouldn't have been within Mistah J's actual character, but it also smacks of SHOCK!VALUE!OMG! that would've made the work even more eye-rollingly pretentious than it is. (yes, I really do like it, but c'mon!) I'm not for homophobic censorship myself, which I think was the root cause of DC going 'er... no...' on that element, but it saved the work from becoming somewhat cringe-worthy.
When I was 17, I though Mistah J wearing high-heels was really edgy. Some years later, I've seen so many men in high-heels (and so much exposure to the concept of men in high-heels being edgy) that now I just sigh. Okay, it might not be a part of your world on a regular basis, but it is not, in itself, all that radical and its inclusion as an element in a story does not automatically make that story awesome. It makes the art awesome. Not the story.
People's attitude to this is often what it is to swearing in comics: "Wow, there's swearing in this comic, that makes it HARDCORE."
No, it doesn't. Swearing is cheap. It's effective, when applied thoughtfully, but it's also common as skin cells in a crowded train car. What the swearing-censorship in comics challenges writers to do is come up with more creative, interesting ways for characters to speak, establish distinct character voices. Remove that and it becomes too much about 'overcoming the censorship' and going for shock-value f-bombs all over the place.
I've already aired my opinion of people thinking Mistah J swearing makes him so hardcore, and I stand by it. As I stand by my assertion that ASBAR #8 was cheap and not at all evocative of the true awesomeness that is Mistah J.
What is happening - this new approach to the Joker as 'gritty' and 'realistic', blandly, ordinarily killing people after shagging them and swanning around in a mad-scientist lab coat is that it is reducing him to the status of common B-grade, brutish thug.
What sets Joker apart from as a villain is his theatricality and his unique approach to crime as performance art. His nihilistic hedonism. His wit, charm and charisma. His seductiveness, even as a buffoon, or a sociopath. His insane brilliance and intellect. That somehow, on some level, what he does makes sense because it relates back to his philosophy on life as a joke. He is NOT a common thug, or a common killer.
Look at the work of Chuck Dixon and Paul Dini. They consistently write excellent Joker stories that exemplify his charisma, intelligence and humour without EVER downplaying his dangerousness, insanity and sociopathy.
Strangling a woman, while grimacing and thinking tortured-dark thoughts? Silently slaughtering a few people and standing there with bug eyes and a big knife? You could swap him with any generic serial killer or horror-movie villain and not notice the difference. Like two classics from those genres - Hannibal Lector and Freddie Krueger - Joker stands apart and is a classic in his own right because he is unique and different. Sure, someone covered in the blood of those they've slaughtered is horrifying. That doesn't make it good character innovation or depiction and certainly not with a character of Joker's complexity.
It's been done. Over and over and over and over again. It's staid; it lacks flair, imagination and style. It lacks energy and pinache. It lacks the essence of what makes the Joker, THE JOKER.
Sure, it's hardcore. That doesn't make it good. Fool's Errand is pretty hardcore too. So is Slayride. And they are both excellent, not just in story and content but in the way they gleefully revel in the full spectrum of traits that make the Joker such an enduring, incomparable character.
I'm not against innovation and I'm certainly not against new interpretations on classic characters - so long as they are kept separate from the mainstream canon. There are dozens of Elseworld stories I really love and think are fabulous.
But when we're talking mainstream, rather than going the cheap route, writers should seek to innovate on subtler, more sophisticated levels than the ad-nauseum murder of half-naked women and the smearing of blood on walls, not to mention try to build on the character rather than remove everything that makes them awesome. At least ASBAR has the virtue of being outside of canon and damn good camp fun.
But I'd really like to see a cessation of this attitude that cheap shock-value makes a good story. And I'd really like to see a little more rounded comprehension of who the Joker is, rather than just grabbing the remorseless-murderer angle and beating us over the heads with it. Yeah, yeah, we got it with the murder of Sarah Essen-Gordon, okay? Geeze. Joker is NOT JUST a killer. He enacts psychological warfare on a grand scale, and on Batman in particular.
I'd argue what he did to Tim Drake in the flashback sequence of Return of the Joker was far more horrifying, far more sophisticated and far more psychological than the murder of Jason Todd, Sarah and the crippling of Gordon. ASBAR and RIP so far don't even rate high enough for a comparison.
I'll give it a go.
I think the biggest problem with The Killing Joke is that it is the standard by which all other Joker stories are judged.
These days, the book largely coasts on its legend. New fans, whether specific-Joker or general-Batman, or both, are told: "Get The Killing Joke. It's the BEST Batman story ever! Or at least the BEST Joker story ever! There's nothing else like it or that can equal it!"
This sets fans up with not only an expectation but a sense of initiation, once they've got the book and have read it. They're 'in' the club now, they know what it's all about and they then take up the role themselves, guiding other new fans to this sacred text which will enlighten them for all the ages in the ways of Joker-stories.
It also sets up an unfortunate sense of elitism. Because TKJ is treated so much like the Bible of Joker stories, and everyone froths at the mouth over it, it's difficult to not like it without feeling like you don't 'get it'. So long and so loudly has it been lauded that I really believe this reputation in a way cultivates people's reaction to it. It is difficult to enter the fandom without almost immediately hearing about it in effusive praise and I think this attitude works on a subconscious level in many ways.
I mean, it's practically sacrosanct. Criticism of it is few and far between and often shouted down, if not outright ignored. So conflated has it become with its own legend that many fans also take it as Gospel Truth, patently ignoring the fact Moore himself did not intend it to be canon, and Joker himself states in TKJ that he's not sure about his past and is constantly remembering it in different ways.
If a fan wants to personally take on that particular history presented in TKJ as their canon, that's one thing. To state it to others as the canon, is another and it's something I see constantly done. Not with any real intent of misleading - just with a genuine misunderstanding of what the book's about. Again, this comes back to the book's legend and status within the world of Western comics. It is at the point where the content of the book is often almost ignored in favour of its reputation and prestige.
Long-time fans spend a great deal of time mooning over TKJ and its merits and counting it as the ultimate Joker story.
Apart from creating a sacred aura around the story that is difficult to overcome, this is terribly, terribly unfair to the myriad of other wonderful Joker stories that exist.
Because no major Joker story can now be released without being compared back to TKJ.
This is problematic on many levels. Firstly, TKJ is a very flawed work, if a wonderful one.
Second, it's its own beast, and should be. It's a very particular type of story that was told in a particular time and very much reflects that. While its influence should be acknowledged, its place in history should be accepted - there should not be this attitude that it represents the pinnacle of Joker-stories and that can never be contravened.
Thirdly, it makes it difficult for new writers to innovate and earn the same level of respect because it would be almost impossible to detach from the awareness that what they're writing is going to be compared to a story twenty years old, written in a whole other era and with a whole other purpose in mind. Some writers have taken the easy route and followed the TKJ model. Some have gone in another direction. Both have had the misfortune of having fans and reviewers alike go: "Good, but not as good as The Killing Joke".
Fourthly, DC Comics themselves take an active part in promoting the legend of TKJ and of touting it as numero uno in Joker-lore, reinforcing these ideas in readers' minds.
Finally, so sacred has TKJ become, that there is a fandom-wide reluctance to let go of it. Nothing can replace or exceed it. Fans are unwilling to concede another story might be better, or more cohesive or more interesting or exciting. TKJ partially represents an entire shift in the mindset of comics and it casts a very long, very black shadow to this day.
Rather than new Joker stories being judged on their own merits, they're always connected back to TKJ. Many fans love the sympathetic edge given to The Joker in this story, which is something I really feel participates in people's dogged connection to it. So it also becomes a matter of, in other stories, Joker being too 'inhuman'. Too 'unlikeable'. They like their Joker-woobies.
And this in itself is problematic because it does allow people to then ignore the absolute hideousness of what Joker does in the story. Oh sure, people acknowledge it, even revel in it to a degree - but somehow, on some level, it is allowed by the horrible life Mistah J recalls for himself, despite the fact that might just be the fevered imaginings of a diseased mind.
All this said, I myself have a sincere emotional attachment to TKJ. I have mention before, I still, to this day, get teary-eyed every time I read it. I am working through the process of ceasing to view other Joker stories through the lens of TKJ and of acknowledging its flaws and fallibles. This rant was partially inspired by a variety of comments I have seen all over the internet this week alone about TKJ Joker's history being canon, the story being the greatest, a variety of new fans accepting the TKJ gospel without question and DC's latest exploitive selling line in relation to the new graphic novel due for release in September.
I don't want another Killing Joke, though. It stands alone, as all stories should. I do want something fresh, exciting and interesting, though. But I also want something that is true to the character. That exemplifies exactly what it is that makes him arguably the greatest villain in fiction. Which brings me to my other rant for the day.
And that is the use of shock-value and flash blinding readers to the actual quality of the story.
I myself have been very guilty of this in the past. So long as Mistah J was doing the most awful, outrageous, extreme things possible, I didn't always stop to think about whether this actually made the story good.
There is this unfortunate attitude in fandom that just because something might be 'gritty' or 'realistic' or 'outrageous' this somehow is equivalent to being 'good'.
Take Morrison's latest imagining of the Joker, for example. Because he's got a scarred face, is covered in blood and enigmatically playing cards, people are going WOW this is how the Joker SHOULD be! This is AWESOME! This is SCARY!
It's pretentious twaddle, is what it is. It's glamour; cheap and trite and designed to suck people in.
Now, I like Serious House as much as the next person. And his vision of Joker as an omnipotent trickster god worked well within the context of that story, detached from the rest of canon. Sure, the Jean-Paul cone-breasted corset would've been pretty funny, although it wouldn't have been within Mistah J's actual character, but it also smacks of SHOCK!VALUE!OMG! that would've made the work even more eye-rollingly pretentious than it is. (yes, I really do like it, but c'mon!) I'm not for homophobic censorship myself, which I think was the root cause of DC going 'er... no...' on that element, but it saved the work from becoming somewhat cringe-worthy.
When I was 17, I though Mistah J wearing high-heels was really edgy. Some years later, I've seen so many men in high-heels (and so much exposure to the concept of men in high-heels being edgy) that now I just sigh. Okay, it might not be a part of your world on a regular basis, but it is not, in itself, all that radical and its inclusion as an element in a story does not automatically make that story awesome. It makes the art awesome. Not the story.
People's attitude to this is often what it is to swearing in comics: "Wow, there's swearing in this comic, that makes it HARDCORE."
No, it doesn't. Swearing is cheap. It's effective, when applied thoughtfully, but it's also common as skin cells in a crowded train car. What the swearing-censorship in comics challenges writers to do is come up with more creative, interesting ways for characters to speak, establish distinct character voices. Remove that and it becomes too much about 'overcoming the censorship' and going for shock-value f-bombs all over the place.
I've already aired my opinion of people thinking Mistah J swearing makes him so hardcore, and I stand by it. As I stand by my assertion that ASBAR #8 was cheap and not at all evocative of the true awesomeness that is Mistah J.
What is happening - this new approach to the Joker as 'gritty' and 'realistic', blandly, ordinarily killing people after shagging them and swanning around in a mad-scientist lab coat is that it is reducing him to the status of common B-grade, brutish thug.
What sets Joker apart from as a villain is his theatricality and his unique approach to crime as performance art. His nihilistic hedonism. His wit, charm and charisma. His seductiveness, even as a buffoon, or a sociopath. His insane brilliance and intellect. That somehow, on some level, what he does makes sense because it relates back to his philosophy on life as a joke. He is NOT a common thug, or a common killer.
Look at the work of Chuck Dixon and Paul Dini. They consistently write excellent Joker stories that exemplify his charisma, intelligence and humour without EVER downplaying his dangerousness, insanity and sociopathy.
Strangling a woman, while grimacing and thinking tortured-dark thoughts? Silently slaughtering a few people and standing there with bug eyes and a big knife? You could swap him with any generic serial killer or horror-movie villain and not notice the difference. Like two classics from those genres - Hannibal Lector and Freddie Krueger - Joker stands apart and is a classic in his own right because he is unique and different. Sure, someone covered in the blood of those they've slaughtered is horrifying. That doesn't make it good character innovation or depiction and certainly not with a character of Joker's complexity.
It's been done. Over and over and over and over again. It's staid; it lacks flair, imagination and style. It lacks energy and pinache. It lacks the essence of what makes the Joker, THE JOKER.
Sure, it's hardcore. That doesn't make it good. Fool's Errand is pretty hardcore too. So is Slayride. And they are both excellent, not just in story and content but in the way they gleefully revel in the full spectrum of traits that make the Joker such an enduring, incomparable character.
I'm not against innovation and I'm certainly not against new interpretations on classic characters - so long as they are kept separate from the mainstream canon. There are dozens of Elseworld stories I really love and think are fabulous.
But when we're talking mainstream, rather than going the cheap route, writers should seek to innovate on subtler, more sophisticated levels than the ad-nauseum murder of half-naked women and the smearing of blood on walls, not to mention try to build on the character rather than remove everything that makes them awesome. At least ASBAR has the virtue of being outside of canon and damn good camp fun.
But I'd really like to see a cessation of this attitude that cheap shock-value makes a good story. And I'd really like to see a little more rounded comprehension of who the Joker is, rather than just grabbing the remorseless-murderer angle and beating us over the heads with it. Yeah, yeah, we got it with the murder of Sarah Essen-Gordon, okay? Geeze. Joker is NOT JUST a killer. He enacts psychological warfare on a grand scale, and on Batman in particular.
I'd argue what he did to Tim Drake in the flashback sequence of Return of the Joker was far more horrifying, far more sophisticated and far more psychological than the murder of Jason Todd, Sarah and the crippling of Gordon. ASBAR and RIP so far don't even rate high enough for a comparison.