Finally Making Sense of The Killing Joke

[greyman24]

I've always had a problem with The Killing Joke.

The issue (and I know I'm not the first person to bring this up) is that the build-up never seems to equal the pay-off. And, considering that months after this book came out in 1988, we had A Death in the Family, it seemed to make even less sense that the climax of the book had the protagonist/antagonist sharing a laugh on a rooftop.

And it seemed to take the concept of "Batman doesn't kill" to an absurd point. However, I just sort of twigged to a different way of thinking about it.

Let's say you take as a given the idea that Bruce Wayne already made the oath not to kill. And let's say that Joker has already been a murderer.

Given those points, from a rational perspective, how is the death of Jason Todd or the maiming of Barbara Gordon any different from the other atrocities committed by The Joker?  I mean, obviously, from an emotional perspective it would probably make a difference, but this is a subjective judgement. One can easily chalk up to "poetic faith" (to quote Coleridge) how a fictitious individual would make that kind of decision.

To use a more real world example, the felony charge of "capital murder" is differentiated from first or second degree murder by applying to the murder of a police officer. The argument for why killing a single policeman is considered a graver violation than killing a single citizen is because that individual ignores the authority imbued by the police: thereby posing a greater threat.

However, the same charge (capital murder) applies to a mass murder or to one who has committed murder during a felony or to one who has been paid to commit murder or to one who has paid someone ELSE to commit murder.

I don't know. Does that make sense?

[Navarre]

Does that make sense?

No, and your attempt to educate me against my will has angered me!   

Seriously, yeah that makes good sense. Bruce should divorce himself from the personalization of the death if he wishes to be an equal arbiter of justice.

Does Bruce do what he does because the general way in which good people like his parents might die compels him to seek justice or, if his parent and all those close to him were found alive and well, would he be able to seek a different life even though others still suffer?

ie, how much of what Batman does is motivated by personal (selfish?) reasons as opposed to a true quest for justice?

[Gibralter]

No, and your attempt to educate me against my will has angered me!   

Navarre Smash?

[Blackthunder01]

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.

[greyman24]

Seriously, yeah that makes good sense. Bruce should divorce himself from the personalization of the death if he wishes to be an equal arbiter of justice.

See, but the problem I had with this the first time I read it ties to that poetic faith/suspension of disbelief thing. I couldn't possibly see a scenario where any individual COULD divorce himself so fully. Still have some problems with that.

Does Bruce do what he does because the general way in which good people like his parents might die compels him to seek justice or, if his parent and all those close to him were found alive and well, would he be able to seek a different life even though others still suffer?

ie, how much of what Batman does is motivated by personal (selfish?) reasons as opposed to a true quest for justice?

Exactly. But the only measuring stick we have to compare his character is to reference those we know and those referenced by others, within the conceits we've already established. Of course, none of us know billionaires who dress up as bats and can turn capes into gliders.

[Addicted2aa]

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.

But that defeats the whole purpose. The not killing thing is what makes them better. That's torture and an extreme version. Some might say that's worse than killing.
The not killing is essentially why vigilantes can be tolerated. He's never going to do anything that's so absolutely terrible that he has to be removed.
Like, with police when they step over the line, we have a system to remove them from power. If a police man gets rough with a suspect, he gets punished. If he pulls a Rodney King, he's kicked off the force. There is nothing like that for Batman.  If Batman breaks a few bones, that's ok. Most people can recover from that. If he gets an innocent we can over look it. But if he starts killing people, well you can't come back from that if he gets it wrong. So he can never cross that line.

And it's only partially about the damage he does. If Batman starts taking justice into his own hands, I.E. Judging and sentencing, especially a sentence so strong, he becomes a tyrant. Right now all he does is prevent crime and catch criminals. The punishment is left to the courts.

Now, there is the argument to be made that this is the Joker. It's clearly not an innocent. Even if he pulls a little tyranny the world will be better off, right? Yeah, probably. But that's not a choice everyone is capable of making, especially a lawful good Paladin like Batman.  Batman, as a character, would cease to be after that. Batman is more than a symbol, it's a principle, it's a way of life. It's about never flinching, about never comprising, no matter how bad things get. That's why he's Gotham an eternally damned city.

[Blackthunder01]

Now, there is the argument to be made that this is the Joker. It's clearly not an innocent. Even if he pulls a little tyranny the world will be better off, right? Yeah, probably. But that's not a choice everyone is capable of making, especially a lawful good Paladin like Batman.  Batman, as a character, would cease to be after that. Batman is more than a symbol, it's a principle, it's a way of life. It's about never flinching, about never comprising, no matter how bad things get. That's why he's Gotham an eternally damned city.

And that's exactly why we and the citizens of Gotham complain about him.  People are begging him to do it and he won't.  Hell, cops are begging him to do it.  I don't agree at all with this stance to not cripple.  Besides, Batman is a total hypocrate in most cases.  Given the chance to capture or kill Joe Chill, Bruce decided to take Chill's gun put it to his head and blow his brains all over the street.  (Superman/Batman #18)  So why don't others deserve the same justice he gave himself?

[Addicted2aa]

And that's exactly why we and the citizens of Gotham complain about him.  People are begging him to do it and he won't.  Hell, cops are begging him to do it.  I don't agree at all with this stance to not cripple.  Besides, Batman is a total hypocrate in most cases.  Given the chance to capture or kill Joe Chill, Bruce decided to take Chill's gun put it to his head and blow his brains all over the street.  (Superman/Batman #18)  So why don't others deserve the same justice he gave himself?

Haven't read that, nor had I heard it. Is this cannon? If so that Batman character is ruined. It's a broken story. But if that is the case, then there is no consistency to the story. It even breaks the Batman is simply a delusional rich man obsessed with his dead parents. In that scenario he would have killed Joker for Jason. I don't know where that leaves him, but I don't like it. Don't like the character or the story progression.

As to the people of Gotham, they can kill the Joker too. Any one who thinks it's Batman's responsibility to do the killing is just wrong. I think that would even make a very good plot. Joe Smith gets a pistol, sneaks it into a court room, shoots Joker while he's on trial. Or at Arkam or during prisoner transport. Doesn't matter. But then he gets hunted because he's a murderer and different sides of the GCPD and the Bat family either hunt or shield him.

[Blackthunder01]

It's canon.  It's the story arc right after Superman/Batman: Supergirl.  Matthew could help me with who the villains are because they're from Legion, but 3 "Lords" came back in time and altered Batman and Superman's histories so that they would be raised by the Lords.  After a struggle against Uncle Sam with a power ring and Wonder Woman, Superman was the first to realize time was messed up.  Both characters were acting normally again when Superman grabs Batman and tries to correct history.  First stop was Smallville where they fixed Superman's life.  Next stop was Gotham.  As Superman is telling Bruce that even though it's painful, it has to happen, Superman looks down to see that Bruce isn't there and already has Chill disarmed.  Bruce takes the gun, puts it to Chill's temple and splatters him all over the side walk.  Old Bruce is erased from time while Superman stands next to the 3 members of the Wayne family saying "Bruce, what have you done?"

Great moment because I feel like it's a truthful telling of the story.  If you're looking to get the issue, this is the cover:

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/superman-batman/16-1.jpg

It takes place at the end of the book.  It's one of my favorite Batman moments that most people tend to over look.

[Blackthunder01]

Oh and sorry ... it was issue 16 and not 18.

[Addicted2aa]

It's canon.  It's the story arc right after Superman/Batman: Supergirl.  Matthew could help me with who the villains are because they're from Legion, but 3 "Lords" came back in time and altered Batman and Superman's histories so that they would be raised by the Lords.  After a struggle against Uncle Sam with a power ring and Wonder Woman, Superman was the first to realize time was messed up.  Both characters were acting normally again when Superman grabs Batman and tries to correct history.  First stop was Smallville where they fixed Superman's life.  Next stop was Gotham.  As Superman is telling Bruce that even though it's painful, it has to happen, Superman looks down to see that Bruce isn't there and already has Chill disarmed.  Bruce takes the gun, puts it to Chill's temple and splatters him all over the side walk.  Old Bruce is erased from time while Superman stands next to the 3 members of the Wayne family saying "Bruce, what have you done?"

Great moment because I feel like it's a truthful telling of the story.  If you're looking to get the issue, this is the cover:

http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/superman-batman/16-1.jpg

It takes place at the end of the book.  It's one of my favorite Batman moments that most people tend to over look.

I remember that arc vaguely. I think I must not have finished it cause I don't remember that at all. Preliminary rebuttal, because I haven't read the issue, it's not the same Batman. It sounds like he was raised different which makes him an alternative Batman, and so it might be cannon, it's not part of the persona that currently embodies "Batman".
But I'll check it out, see if I still hold to that after reading it.

[greyman24]

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.

@Addicted2aa 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.

[Navarre]

It depends if he wishes to do permanent damage or not. I have been in fight where I stopped my adversaries with injuries but they weren't permanently crippled. Spraining a wrist or even dislocating a shoulder isn't the same as intentionally destroying a man's kneecaps or giving them brain damage.

Of course accidents happen but that's true even in training. If Batman's intent is not to cause permanent injury and he is as good as he is, he could control the damage he causes to most of his adversaries.

[Blackthunder01]

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.

I guess it could.  But at that part of the story, Bruce and Clark were acting completely in character again.  They didn't seem at all like they were alternate reality versions.

[greyman24]

It depends if he wishes to do permanent damage or not. I have been in fight where I stopped my adversaries with injuries but they weren't permanently crippled. Spraining a wrist or even dislocating a shoulder isn't the same as intentionally destroying a man's kneecaps or giving them brain damage.

Um...care to elaborate on that first part? Is this a schoolyard fight or something more recent?

Of course accidents happen but that's true even in training. If Batman's intent is not to cause permanent injury and he is as good as he is, he could control the damage he causes to most of his adversaries.

Yes. Absolutely agree. But the reality (if we are applying reality to something that we ALL know will not hold up to that kind of scrutiny) is that accidents DO happen, and, yes, he can control the damage in MOST cases, but, with the quantity of fights he's participated in, the sheer law of averages would mean that he would have to have injured someone more than he intended: whether it be a spinal chord or brain or heart or artery...there are a TON of ways it could happen.