Philippos Fourty-Two ([info]philippos42) wrote,
@ 2007-08-16 14:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:alan (spit) moore, the killing joke

The Killing Joke, killing a heroic archetype
Here, [info]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 The Killing Joke, could turn a cute kid's comic like Marvelman into the vile horror story that he made it, could spend much of his career making his name by doing unspeakable things to other people's characters, especially children's pop literature characters, & people still defend him, still think his name on something is an inherent plus.

OK. I can hear people saying, "But the revisionist Marvelman was Dez Skinn's idea, & The Killing Joke was part of the editorial 'darkening' of Batman after they sacked Mike W. Barr. This is editorial fiat, surely?" Even if it were, that doesn't explain Watchmen (his baby, his pitch), or the rejected Twilight of the Gods pitch (more of the same), or his return to the cynical reinvention genre in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. There's a pattern here. And note in Bolland's own recounting of events--

"Back in Northampton, Alan had to check with editor Len Wein how DC would feel about him crippling one of its key character, Batgirl. Len phoned back. His precise words are not printable here, but the gist of it was that it was okay. The Joker had, after all, to be shown to be a seriously nasty piece of work."

--that Moore & Bolland were asking permission from DC editorial to cripple Barbara Gordon. There's clearly a lot of this violence coming out of Moore himself.

So, when I remember that Alan Moore claimed to have threatened Julie Schwartz's life in order to write the last Schwartz-era Superman story (instead of Julie handing it to somebody who'd worked so hard to build that character, like Elliott S! Maggin), it no longer seems like cute exaggeration. I actually visualize a young, manic Moore threatening an old man about to retire.

Alan Moore is the king of the clever little British comics monkeys. I think his Swamp Thing was well-done, I seriously love some of his Green Lantern Corps stories, I think The Ballad of Halo Jones is at least pretty good space fantasy. He seems to have done all right with Supreme. He had some real skill. The pity is that he kept going back to that violently iconoclastic well, & editors kept hiring him to do it. More the pity that he now casts a long shadow over comics, surpassed only by a few with names like Neal Adams & Stan Lee. Because what is now imitated is the destructive, careless side of his art.

So much for Moore.

I would also mention that The Killing Joke is probably part of the reason that Bolland's art now almost always looks creepy to me, but I also read Camelot 3000 at a comparably young age, & was a bit scarred by that, so... no, it's still largely Jim Gordon's implied rape scene that did it.

In any case, I'm very much on John Ostrander & Kim Yale's side regarding the treatment of Barbara Gordon. Not that they never killed anyone off prematurely & brutally; I have a complete run of their Suicide Squad, & there are parts of that that still bring tears to my eyes. But it was a story they wrote in a Batman Family book (Batman Chronicles?) that really brought home how betrayed Barbara must feel. The Joker gut-shot her, tortured her, kidnapped & tortured (maybe even raped) her father. She asked Bruce to kill the Joker, & when Bruce tracked the Joker down, he...hugged the Joker.

(In Suicide Squad, things went south a lot. Good people died. But I don't remember Waller hugging criminals who'd killed her people. So when Batman would show up & tell Waller he didn't approve of her, which he did a couple of times; really, who was he to say?)

Bruce chose the Joker over Barbara Gordon. He chose the serial killer (who even attacked his friends) over his friends, over the girl who had idolized him. Let me point out here that contrary to later retcons, Barbara wasn't originally Robin's girlfriend; she had a thing for Batman. He chose the red-lipped sadist over her--the young woman who emulated him--who loved him.

This eventually convinced me that in Moore's interpretation, Dr. Wertham was right about Batman. Bruce was not only gay, but gay in the worst possible way, for the worst person. Batman as a concept plumbed the depths of immorality & misogyny in that story, & what's worse is that a lot of us, on first reading it, didn't even notice. It was easy to be distracted by all the other stuff. Maybe Bruce was distracted. But it's not OK.

But there is a deeper problem than misogyny that makes The Killing Joke a watershed moment in the downfall of Batman as heroic archetype.

Mike W. Barr once said (in a Maze Agency letter column) that when he was writing Batman, he always had the Joker stop short of killing anybody. The Joker might try, but would fail. Barr's logic was that if the Joker actually succeeded in killing someone, Batman would be morally obligated to, in Barr's words, "drive a stake through the Joker's heart." In order to keep the Joker viable as a commonly recurring villain, Barr kept him from being too dangerous. Now I remind you of that hapless amusement park security guard, body grinning in death in the scene in The Killing Joke where we find Jim Gordon being tortured. Apparently, by Mike Barr's standards, that was enough cause for a hero to kill the Joker, & Batman was to be written as a hero.

But not in the Denny O'Neil (& Len Wein, I guess, I forget about him) editorial regime. The Joker would kill dozens of random people, & that wasn't enough for Batman to put him down. The Joker would kill Batman's own son, that wasn't enough. Batman, in the end, was impotent to protect any innocents, anyone like his own parents, due to his pseudo-Kantian moral strictures. A useless vigilante, who attracted violence but could not end it.

And so a cultural split appeared. On one side those who swallowed whole the hypocrisy--embodied in the Batman books by Dr. Leslie Thompkins--that refuses to kill the habitual killer, thus enabling further crimes while pretending to be "better than he is." On the other, those who believe in consequences, in the idea of actually making a difference, to which Batman paid lip service but which he didn't really accomplish. Maybe we gave up on Batman & read the Punisher, or other series not marred by hypocrisy. Maybe we just gave up on a tendency to try to make an already dark character as dark as possible.

Me, I became a fan of Black Canary, I read Bat-spinoffs like Nightwing & Robin, & I found Batman to be... insufferable. I rooted for characters DC told us were "morally compromised"--like Huntress--not to be cowed by a self-righteous bully like Batman. Who still makes me vomit.

Grant Morrison now says he's trying to rebuild Batman, to make him less of a bleak one-dimensional character. Let's hope he has editors who understand this, & can help.

I'm not holding my breath.



(Post a new comment)

Further expansion #1
[info]philippos42
2007-08-16 09:26 pm UTC (link)
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 to this)

Further expansion #2
[info]philippos42
2007-08-16 10:00 pm UTC (link)
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.

Why? I don't really know. Was it an attempt to make the characters more street-level & local? To de-age Bruce & his cast?

Or was it somehow because if the Joker had crippled a Congressperson, then he would have been forced to pay for his crimes--no more nice revolving-door asylum for you, mister!--& the most important thing for DC editorial was that the Joker continue to be free to create havoc. That consideration was more important than the moral integrity of their main character. No doubt it was also more important than the past development of someone in the supporting cast as well.

Or maybe the editors hated politically ascendant women. I can see that too.

(Reply to this)

Further expansion #3
[info]philippos42
2007-08-16 10:57 pm UTC (link)
I went off on somebody's blog, somebody I don't even know. It was screened, it may not show.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

But hey, it got me to get a Google account!
[info]philippos42
2007-08-16 10:59 pm UTC (link)
For this, I signed up on Google so I could comment on blogspot. Well, it is an old peeve.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]thecomicman
2007-08-17 02:19 am UTC (link)
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 to this)(Thread)


[info]philippos42
2007-08-17 06:36 pm UTC (link)
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 to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]thecomicman
2007-08-17 08:31 pm UTC (link)
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.

Morality issues aside (and I believe you yourself stated this), but killing off the Joker is just not a good business move. I can rationalize it all I want within the confines of the text, but at the end of the day, DC Comics and its parent company AOL/Time Warner will not allow the Joker to be killed off (at least not for any significant amount of time). The merchandising just brings in too much cash.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]thecomicman
2007-08-17 08:32 pm UTC (link)
Also, I think it's important to note that the world of Batman and the Joker is not the real world. What is absurd in the real world may not be absurd in the comic book world, and vice versa.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lost_angelwings
2007-08-17 10:27 am UTC (link)
I've always wondered why the state Gotham City is in wouldn't legalize capital punishment when their largest city (Gotham) is basically the site of hundreds of serial killings a year. :\

You'd think that once the Joker escaped the billionth time, that they'd allow it. :\

For that matter why dun they actually use some of that vaunted DCU technology in Arkham to keep the prisoners there?

Or the Phantom Zone!

What exactly IS moral to these heroes?

They refuse to kill them. They even find sentencing them to the Phantom Zone (specifically created so that dangerous murderers didn't have to die but could be kept away from the public) to be abhorrent. And they only seem to pay lip service to treatment and conatainment. :\

Considering Bruce Wayne sits on the board of Arkham, you'd think that WayneTech would have the power to completely overhaul Arkham and make it a safe place to be. Or maybe LexCorp would have to do that. >.>

It's just SO DUMB that Batman and his rogues have basically turned it into a game that Batman just plays along with. They break out, kill a bunch of ppl, he locks them back up. It's almost like he WANTS them to live and escape!

What's more disgusting is that later on in Hush, Batman wants to kill the Joker for killing a random character that was suddenly retconned into his past, but Batgirl is unimportant. :\

So is his "best friend" commissioner Gordon. :\ In fact, I totally understand Jason Todd's anger that Batman let Joker live after he killed Jason!

Mike Barr is right :\ Either Joker has to be toned down (like in the Animated Series when he rarely killed anybody but did harm many ppl) or there at least has to be some sort of effort made that this isn't just all a game to Batman!

What's worse about the Killing Joke (and I admit to liking it when I read it :\ ) is that Batgirl was just somebody to be shot. The story wasn't about her, and it wasn't about Gordon, it's about Batman and Joker and how alike they are and how they share a kinship and it's like AWWWWW HOW CUTE :\

That's the purpose of that ending. It's supposed to be sweet, and show a "break" in the game between Joker and Batman and stuff...

Batman SHOULDN'T kill b/c he shouldn't be playing executioner (tho he should be fully prepared to use lethal force to apprehend or stop the Joker. I rly wish he'd throw a Batarang at his head sometimes instead of letting him get away and then solving his little clues). :\ BUT if Gotham and whatever state it's in is absolutely useless to help, and REFUSES to do nething, I think at some point, killing Joker has to be a possiblity. :\

Or the Phantom Zone.

Or giving him to the Green Lanterns.

Considering the GL Corps locks up far tamer villains on other planets, why can't the Joker be held in Oa? :\

And I think ppl are rly blinded by how great Alan Moore is to ever criticize his stories. :\ And I think part of it is actually what you said about him ruining childhood characters. Some ppl are in such a hurry to grow up and the idea of being child like is an insult to them that they're more than happy to have a "darkening" of their childhood and in fact will see their enjoyment of it as growth.

:\

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]jmatonak
2007-08-19 03:49 pm UTC (link)
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 to this)(Parent)

testing this one...
(Anonymous)
2007-11-25 08:41 pm UTC (link)
Very interesting... as always! Cheers from -Switzerland-.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

?????
[info]philippos42
2007-11-28 03:34 am UTC (link)
What? Who?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Moore Killing Jokes
(Anonymous)
2007-12-26 03:21 am UTC (link)
I know I'm late.

I'm going to do the obvious thing here and defend Alan Moore.

Sure his hey-day has passed and all but I feel it is my duty to inform you that his "iconoclasm" is his most appealing strength. I WANT him to shake things apart. I WANT idols to be torn down. Like Moses I believe there should be NO sacred cows (except I don't think there should be sacred old bearded men either. NOT SANTA. Fool.). If we don't look at these symbols/icons/comic characters/dog's balls/WHATEVER from a different perspective then everything will continually move sideways instead of forwards.

Thats a problem with the damn world.

Moore brought hyper-realism to the table (Watchmen, anyone?) and, I think, changed comics for the better.

The Killing Joke is.. well, it isn't great.

However, just because a woman is crippled in a story doesn't make a writer a misogynist.

Just because the ever intensifying battle with the Joker comes to an unexpected head - that the battle reaches a heady fever-pitch - and the Joker and Batman end up reacting in the way they do does not make Moore some kind of violent, nutty Englishman who has come to piss on your idols, defecate on your continuity and rape your women. The ending shows Batman trying to deal with the Joker differently from anyway he has done before by reaching out to him IN DESPERATION. That anxiety comes out in the tension-releasing and climactic laugh - the Killing Joke if you will. If that is a one-dimensional character trait then I am Adam West's dried-up sense of irony.

The ideas you have built up seem to be more of a reflection on yourself than on the story. As with all media analysis there is a part of you and your wants and fears in there. Recreating the art in your own image, as it were.

The only reason I know this is because I never took that away from it and I, sadly, spend hours looking for things of that ilk, too.

Anyway, isn't it a MAN who is raped and psychologically abused to the point of madness? Babs was the lucky one.



(Reply to this)

Wrong
(Anonymous)
2008-01-05 04:20 pm UTC (link)
The Joker is probably the most interesting and most deep villain in all of comics and The Killing Joke shows this. Not in the way he rapes Barb, or even tries to drive Gordon mad. It shows that the Joker is just an everyday man, a comedian, a blue collar worker, an artist who happens to let his most crazy dark desires out of the bag when he loses everything. He lets it all go and lets the darkness completely envelop him. The Joker is more dark and evil then crazy, if you watch how he plans out his funhouse and the ride he puts Gordon on, it is actually quite brilliant. Of course Joker is mad, but his evil and sick outlook on life trumps his craziness by far. Not only is this shown in Moore's book but also the metaphor of Joker's clown paint. Since Joker is represented as a blue-collar worker, he essentially represents the everyday man going off the edge. But his facepaint is a metaphor for the mask that all of us wear to hide our dark desires. The difference with the Joker is that he commits all these sick and twisted fantasies with the "mask" on, showing how he is so different then all of us.

The Joker is every man.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Wrong
[info]philippos42
2008-01-13 10:00 pm UTC (link)
Bah. Two-Face is much more deep & interesting than the Joker, conceptually.

I will grant that Moore actually tried to give the Joker depth, in that story. But DC generally doesn't get that, & it seems that a lot of writers & editors in comics just don't get "depth" at all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…