The Killing Joke, killing a heroic archetype

Aug 16, 2007 14:35

Here, digital_eraser says she's torn on The Killing Joke, because it's so misogynist, but it's by Alan Moore & Brian Bolland, whom she admires.

That's funny. The Killing Joke is a big part of my case for why I despise Alan Moore. I have no problem denouncing the man. What follows is expanded from my reply on her LJ:

What gets me is that Alan Moore could write ( Read more... )

the killing joke, alan (spit) moore

Leave a comment

Comments 18

Further expansion #1 philippos42 August 16 2007, 21:26:48 UTC
OK, I think it's just Killing Joke week.

Comments on Laura Hudson's Killing Joke piece argue about whether shooting Barbara, then stripping her & taking naked pictures of her is sexual assault. Actually, the word you're looking for is sadism.

I added the following to the comments there, & it's an important elucidation, so I note it here:
The Killing Joke is a case of a work that I found more vile on reflection than at the time. The "resolution" at the end doesn't seem so irresponsible if you forget the context of everything the Joker's done in the story, & who Batman is supposed to be.

Reply


Further expansion #2 philippos42 August 16 2007, 22:00:14 UTC
The weird thing is, (& this really has diddly to do with Moore or this particular work) it's just about at this point that Barbara Gordon got retconned out of being a Congresswoman. She'd left being Batgirl behind & moved up in the world. And then... all that was gone. When she actually met Waller face-to-face later in Suicide Squad, no one said, "Hey, that's Congresswoman Gordon." Because now, due to Denny's retcons, she never had been ( ... )

Reply


Further expansion #3 philippos42 August 16 2007, 22:57:57 UTC
But hey, it got me to get a Google account! philippos42 August 16 2007, 22:59:14 UTC
For this, I signed up on Google so I could comment on blogspot. Well, it is an old peeve.

Reply


thecomicman August 17 2007, 02:19:33 UTC
There is something to be said for not sinking to the level of your antagonist. Batman doesn't kill the Joker because he doesn't kill, not because Batman is suddenly "gay for the Joker" (I'm not even sure where this comes from as it's not even implied in the text).

And complaining about retcons in DC Comics is like complaining about raw fish at a sushi joint.

Reply

philippos42 August 17 2007, 18:36:05 UTC
Well, here we run into the difference between rule morality & consequentialist morality. I could be nice & say it's a matter of opinion, but I really think you're wrong.

Batman has good reasons not to play executioner. He's already operating outside the law, as a vigilante, in a mask. He has to set boundaries for himself in order to maintain that project. (Which is part of the problem with Jean-Paul Valley's stint as Bats.)

But the problem isn't just that Batman doesn't kill. It's that nobody's willing to kill the Joker. It has become absurd. In the real world, the Joker would have been summarily executed on the street by cops long ago.

And if Batman were to kill him, at this point, no one would prosecute.

Reply

thecomicman August 17 2007, 20:31:35 UTC
While certainly true, I think it would devalue Batman as a character if he were to kill the Joker. It's why Year Two was so awful: Batman doesn't ever use guns, yet the authors decided to make him use a gun. And with Gordon's clean-up of the GCPD, I don't think he'd promote the killing of any criminals on the streets. Joker plays the system, and he knows he can with Batman and Gordon around. Is this morally wrong? Perhaps in your and my and a bunch of other people's systems, but not in Batman and Gordon's. Batman and Gordon feel it is more morally wrong to kill the Joker and be done with him than to stick him in Arkham and try to rehabilitate him. Killing him is the easy way out, or what have you ( ... )

Reply

seanmackie October 9 2008, 17:25:38 UTC
The Joker won't kill Batman, but he'll destroy everyone around the Batman. How about the stand-off on the boats, reminiscent of The Prisoner's Dilemma.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

jmatonak August 19 2007, 15:49:29 UTC
It's supposed to be sweet.

I'm pretty sure it's also supposed to be deeply creepy, which doesn't excuse the story in the least.

...they're more than happy to have a "darkening" of their childhood and in fact will see their enjoyment of it as growth.

I was a teenage boy in the late 80s, and I knew tons of people who reacted this way.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up