The Killing Joke

[BatmAngelus]

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.

[Azrael]

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).

[Silver Nemesis]

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.

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.

NO. 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:

"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

Hasn'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.

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

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?

[BatmAngelus]

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.

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...

[The Dark Knight]

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.

[Silver Nemesis]

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...

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. 

[BatmAngelus]

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.

[The Laughing Fish]

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.





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.

[Slash Man]

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?

[thecolorsblend]

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.