Celebrating the 40th anniversary of Return of the Jedi

Batman >> View Post
Post By

In Reply To

Subj: Re:
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 05:58:07 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)
Reply Subj: Re:
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 06:10:12 pm EST (Viewed 1 times)

Previous Post

> > In your opinion; not so much in the opinions of several million readers for the forty-seven years in between 1941 and 1988.
> >
> > > > >Where is the motivation for Joker's insane actions?
> > > >
> > > > You've sort of answered your own question there, he's insane.
> > >
> > > Insane people have reasons for being insane, they are not just born insane.
> >
> > Except for those who are congenitally or hereditarily insane, and sociopaths who have no triggering event, as with Ted Bundy.
> Bundy started out messed up, but over time he became worse and worse as you described.
> The Joker did not start out as some jester. He started out as a person with reason. This goes all the way back to his original origin were he was the leader of the Red Hood gang.
> > It does those things for you. There's plenty of evidence that the Joker was considered Batman's opposite number by legions of readers, writers, editors, and others for a very long time before the very, very recent stories (relative to the character's 66-history) you cite.
> He was considered his opposite, but the inner connection of the character to Batman was not established.
> > If you're really claiming that the Joker wasn't a popular, well-written character before 1988, or that 1988 was somehow the year he was done being developed, I'd suggest you're at war with the past and the future.
> I never claimed that, the original appearance, The Laughing Fish and the Joker's Five Way Revenge all made him popular and were well written. However The Killing Joke forever established a real specific connection between the Joker and Batman that was only alluded to back when Bob Kane wrote the comic and established a definitive account of the Joker's character for all that has remained unsurpassed.
> > If Batman had been cancelled in the 1950s or 1970s -- they were under threat in both eras, saved by continuing strong sales the first time against cultural pressure and saved by pop-cultural inertia and licensing money against weak sales the second time -- we'd be talking about a very different set of "definitive Batman and Joker stories" in a world otherwise no different than our own.
> > That'll come as a surprise to Bill Finger, who wrote that origin in 1951, and to everyone in between Finger and Moore who considered it a perfectly good origin. I guess you and Moore are smarter than 99% of the human race. Luckily the rest of us don't need to agree with you to enjoy our comics.
> Bill Finger's origin was very limited and narrow, Alan Moore fleshed it out and filled it with depth. Everyody who has read Batman: The Killing Joke knows this. I am not claiming to be smarter than anybody.

That's good to know; because most people who read TKJ realise that the Joker's origin is left diliberately ambiguous, unknowable and uncertain.

That basically goes for any story that comes from the villain's POV.

> That's good to know; because most people who read TKJ realise that the Joker's origin is left diliberately ambiguous, unknowable and uncertain.

Posted with Mozilla Firefox on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software