Finally Making Sense of The Killing Joke

[Navarre]

My physical altercations were not schoolyard fights. One was self-defense as an adult from a person attempting to bodily harm me. The second was protecting another person from six people who were trying to beat him.

I submit that accidentally harming someone while pursuing a vigilante lifestyle is not the same as intentionally crippling someone through purposeful application of technique. If I had accidentally broken one of my assailant's arms, for example, it is not the same morally or legally as if I had the man subdued and then broke his arm on purpose.

[Addicted2aa]

But, if I understand the story (I never read it), that would make the Bruce that did the shooting an alternate/Elseworlds/may-never-exist-within-this-time-stream Bruce. Gives future DCU writers an out.

That was my point, but until I read it I'm not committing to it.

The only issue I have with the idea that Batman doesn't maim is that it's a stretch of poetic license.

Boxers don't intend to kill or maim, but it happens. In any situation where one person is physically fighting another, there will come a time when a person is damaged more than intended. Now saying that Batman is just so awesomely in control of himself that he doesn't accidentally kill anyone...okay. I may buy that.

But how often has Batman crippled someone? You hear humorous asides to how he put people in a hospital, or "in traction," or how some criminal "may never walk again", but you almost never actually see Batman cripple someone. I mean, even if he didn't intend to maim people, Kendo masters switched to bamboo weapons for training because they were ACCIDENTALLY killing others with wooden swords.

This is the problem with this kind of examination. It doesn't hold up well. Realistically, what is the punishment Batman delivers? Evidence he turns up would rarely be admissible in a real court. He never damages anyone so seriously they can't humorously walk around in crutches later. Realistically, as a symbol of justice, he would be pretty ineffective. Yeah, he's got that whole superstitious, cowardly lot thing going, but otherwise, he's kind of useless.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying looking into his psyche is pointless because other aspects of his character, particularly his physical exploits, fail the test of realism? If so I disagree, as my view is that's the whole point of fiction, to create a character worth examining. Or at least a story worth examining, but the story and the man are one.

I will respond that Batman doesn't punish. That isn't what Bruce created him for. Or perhaps it is, but it isn't how Bruce uses him. As for the evidence, I doubt Batman collects the evidence and hands it over to Gordon. More likely Batman leaves the villain somewhere and there is an "anonymous" tip to the police, though I know there are older comics that won't follow that presentation.

Navarre already pointed out the solution to physical flaws in the story.

[greyman24]

My physical altercations were not schoolyard fights. One was self-defense as an adult from a person attempting to bodily harm me. The second was protecting another person from six people who were trying to beat him.

I commend you for your part in that.

I submit that accidentally harming someone while pursuing a vigilante lifestyle is not the same as intentionally crippling someone through purposeful application of technique. If I had accidentally broken one of my assailant's arms, for example, it is not the same morally or legally as if I had the man subdued and then broke his arm on purpose.

Agreed. It isn't at all the same. My point isn't whether he would be complicit or flawed or whether his intentions would be called into question. My point is that I have never seen it.

[Navarre]

I think anyone who knowingly harms another, regardless of how severe the injuries, is potentially liable under the law. Of course, the whole idea of costumed heroes is that they disregard their responsibility to be held accountable for such actions, relying instead only on their own moral compass.

[greyman24]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying looking into his psyche is pointless because other aspects of his character, particularly his physical exploits, fail the test of realism? If so I disagree, as my view is that's the whole point of fiction, to create a character worth examining. Or at least a story worth examining, but the story and the man are one.

Actually, what I'm saying is that fictional characters must adhere to an understandable reality. The reason something may be characterized as "stranger than fiction" is that reality doesn't have to be realistic in order to be believed.

With that in mind, examining Bruce Wayne's actions in Killing Joke--not just allowing Joker to live at the end, but in standing on a rooftop joking with him--becomes problematic. At the end of Death in the Family (released less than a year later), Bruce vows "It ends now!" after Jason's death. But the reason he doesn't kill Joker in that story isn't that he takes the high ground; the reason is that Joker gets away.

I will respond that Batman doesn't punish. That isn't what Bruce created him for. Or perhaps it is, but it isn't how Bruce uses him. As for the evidence, I doubt Batman collects the evidence and hands it over to Gordon. More likely Batman leaves the villain somewhere and there is an "anonymous" tip to the police, though I know there are older comics that won't follow that presentation.

Well that's part and parcel of comic books. The justifications of the character change depending on the writer: just as why Bruce created him. I used the point of Batman's effectiveness just as a reducto ad absurdum ploy. Any investigation into any comic book character, once it gets to a certain point, will fall down.

[litanyofthieves]

What pisses me off is that Batman doesn't murder but no where did he make an oat not to cripple.  Knock Joker out, take him to a secure location and amputate his arms and legs.  Perhaps remove his tounge too.  He's still alive but unable to hurt anyone else now.

Come on now, this is the DCU. In 2 weeks Lex Luthor would outfit the joker with prosthetic robot limbs and a tongue to make Batman look like a torturing scumbag, and himself look like a humanitarian.

.... Robo-Joker 2.0.

[Blackthunder01]

I suppose that's a bit of a realistic wish for an unrealistic world.  Honestly, it's continuing realistic villainy and unrealistic heroics that has worn me down to stop buying many titles.  Nothing will ever change because villains will always have disposable people to murder and heroes will never stop it from happening again.

[Navarre]

That sounds fairly true to the real world, doesn't it?

[Blackthunder01]

In some sense.  But at least in the real world, Joker would have been executed.  We put the Virgina Sniper down and he's not even Joker level.

[Navarre]

But that's not Batman's fault, is it?

[Blackthunder01]

That's debatable.  I think that Batman should have done it for Jim Gordon's wife, Barbara, and Jason alone.  I know the people of the city want him to do it too.  Seems like everyone but Batman wants him to do it.  I don't think anyone but Gordon would blame him.

[Navarre]

You don't know every single citizen in Gotham wants Batman to kill the Joker. No one took a vote on that.

[Blackthunder01]

Not every single one but I believe when the writers have 1 person say it, it stands for alot of them saying it too.  (When they're background characters that is.)

[Navarre]

That seems a broad assumption on what society expects of its heroes. In the real world there is nowhere near such a consensus.

[greyman24]

Not every single one but I believe when the writers have 1 person say it, it stands for alot of them saying it too.  (When they're background characters that is.)

Bit of an argument by generalization, there. Depending on who's writing the story, the individuals stating this are either A) Random person on the street, B) Semi-moronic, C) Representing an intelligent, critical thinker, D) A main character. Some of the writers espouse the theory and some don't.

Some writers even adhere to BOTH "Batman should be a killer" and "Batman should never kill". Frank Miller made Batman very much against killing in Year One and very reluctant to kill in LOTDK, but ASBAR had him randomly offing corrupt cops and others with very little compunction.