Beware - this is going to be a long rant. I'm sorry if you hate it, but the ambien isn't working tonight, I just finished reading some of Morrison's Batman RIP and I thought I'd jump in the conversation:
Well, I was interested enough to read the article all the way through, so that says something. I don't like to come on to reddit and "hate" and bash...especially opinion pieces - but I will say this...
This article doesn't really say much of anything. It certainly doesn't say anything new about the Batman/Joker experience or add any major insights. A LOT has been said about the Batman/Joker dynamic and there are countless ways to interpret the latencies of their relationship (which is why their game of cat-and-mouse is so popular). Besides pointing out the obvious (Joker makes Batman better because Joker is the character's top villain/most challenging etc) this article got me to thinking about two points I'd thought I'd mention and see if anyone has any thoughts:
1. Batman is Batman no matter what. (What? I'm getting there.) I've never read anything by "G-man" Guerrero before, but he makes a few comments that make it clear that we both understand the Batman character in very different contexts. (Again, not saying one way is right or better. The reason Batman is so popular is largely due to the breadth of his psychological profile and how each fan experiences the character. Well, that and total bad-ass-ness.) But, when "G-man" suggests that without the Joker Batman would "go soft" I think the comment reads a bit silly. Above most notions, Batman is used to portrayed the peak of human potential (Not just physical, but moral/reasoning and psychological acuteness as well). Certainly, the character would be different if he lacked a foil so powerful, but the whole concept of Batman is flawed if the simple removal of the Joker would lead Bruce Wayne to stop striving for these things. Those characteristics existed before the Joker was a villain and they will continue to do so should he disappear, simply because that is how the character is wired. Does the Joker drive Batman crazy? Yes. Does Batman understand the Joker? Probably not. (Perhaps he either hates the Joker because he will never understand him - or deep down, he completely understands him and that is what truly scares the Batman)...but these are really nice elements that add depth to their relationships as foils - But I firmly believe - in NO WAY that the Joker has made Batman a better hero. (It also is worth mentioning that to the Joker, Batman is everything. But to the Batman, Joker is a hated villain to figure out. Batman has countless other things in his life beyond the Joker. Which makes the relationship a little "one way". Not saying that the Joker isn't important to Batman, because he is. He is an obsession. But, Batman has many obsessions.)
2. Which gets me to my final point. I've always though the Joker exists as a constant reminder to Batman that he will ultimately end in failure. Why? Sure there are lots of reasons, but as of 7:13 am, I think that the two main reasons are 1. Batman isn't willing to do what it takes to finish "the freaks" and 2. Batman can't do a fraction of what Bruce Wayne could do. (The later is especially interesting to me as a reader because, like the Joker - it is proof that Batman needs a similar level of theatrics to effectively exist in the world he has created.)
The Joker doesn't make Batman better. He makes Batman worse. Bruce Wayne is a man with near infinite resources - in an 8 hour work day, he could do more to fight crime, cure poverty and reform mental health systems than Batman could do in months of work. That is why there is the underlying theme/question of narcissism in Batman story lines. Bruce Wayne, through his government connection/contacts and vast bankroll, could easily have the Joker "taken care of" in Arkham Asylum. (That can mean a lot of different things - and I certainly am not referencing a specific notion, but, for a Batman fan it is a thought worth playing around with in your head.)
While Batman cannot kill Joker, the fact that the Joker is alive is blatant proof in Batman's failures. It is criminal. Lets be honest - almost every other story arc (lets say once a year) Joker escapes Arkham or comes out of hiding. There is always a body count. And how high is the Joker's personal body count? Over 1,000? How many of them children and women? How many families has he torn apart. How many countless faces and bodies has he maimed?
This is one of the only elements that truly bothers me about the Batman character/universe. (And consequently a big reason I don't take the Batman/Joker relationship/dynamic as seriously as other fans do). After the first, oh...lets say five, escapes by The Joker we find the death toll/property damage getting to be astronomical.
It is also worth mentioning that Batman builds his ethos around a pretty simple ideal: "taking personal responsibility". By donning the cowl, he is taking personal responsibility to fight crime. Making the world a better place. Cleaning up his city. Protecting himself from feeling weak & helpless and ensuring that no child be made an orphan on his watch.
It should be absolutely inexcusable to the character of Batman that the Joker still exists. Every death, every bomb, every crime that the Joker commits at this point, Batman should be held accountable for. I'm not saying that the writers need to make Batman break his one rule and kill the Joker - but it doesn't mesh and it has always really bothered me.
For the ultimate tactician to not have better contingency plans in place - opens a whole other can of worms with the character. But, as a fan. It is something that I think about and bothers me almost every-time I pick up a comic book. Does any one else feel this way? If you were writing Batman how would you handle this? I've always kind of dreamed that Batman locks the Joker up in the Batcave (and between the writers there would be an unwritten rule that he has to stay in there for a decade) and new unnamed villain (almost Gremlins style) makes about 20 Joker clones and unleashes them on Gotham (each one with slightly different goals/characteristics. Each one a full copy of different stages of the Joker through the years.)
I could go on - but I'll spare you. Batman is a fun character to dissect. I read a great article the other day comparing Frank Miller's Batman to Grant Morrisons that was really worth the read (and touches on some of the Joker *and Robin* dynamic too)
If you are still reading, thanks and I apologize. I hope I didn't come off too much like a D-bag.
Log in to comment