I mean, in Legends of the Dark Knight #50 Batman finds out who his cousin is. Tracing him there shouldn't be too hard.

then joker would have to kill his entire family just so to prove that he doesn't exist.

Dunno, but it would defeat the character you know? Hes the only character in comics that really is a true mystery

true and we like to stay that way.
the only person that batman has no idea what he is

Whit Joker his a cousin, I Thought his family was dead.

I agree that exposing his real identity would seriously hurt the character, but my point is that the whole cousin thing seems like a plot hole.

Yes, his family may be dead, but records of their existence remain. All Batman (or the cops) really need to do is find out the name of Melvin's mother's sister or brother and his/her son's name and voilá. they'd know who the Joker is/was.

They wouldn't need to have a surviving relative to find out whom he used to be; what about DNA testing?

I hope DC keeps him 'unknown', or there goes another fantastic character. I don't know what to worry about anymore, however, because of what's going on in RIP.

"I agree that exposing his real identity would seriously hurt the character..."

"I disagree. I think exposing the character even a little would make him more relateable. In the sense that everyone does has past, including the joker. Making him some what more human/realistic"

Honestly I can't imagine a scenario in which it would be of any interest to reveal who he is. They could retcon something awful like he's Bruce Wayne's bastard son from the future or evil twin brother or something but it'd just turn people off in droves. Its like Wolverine is really James Howlett? Woopdidamndoo that was worth 30 years of waiting. What a let down.

"Honestly I can't imagine a scenario in which it would be of any interest to reveal who he is. They could retcon something awful like he's Bruce Wayne's bastard son from the future or evil twin brother or something but it'd just turn people off in droves. Its like Wolverine is really James Howlett? Woopdidamndoo that was worth 30 years of waiting. What a let down."

Killing Joke is the only time I care to ever see Joker as a real person, even if the story possibly isn't true. Joker is the Joker I could care less about his past, and this is the only time I'll say that about a character I love.

Heaps of characters identities have never been revealed, Mandarin and Mad Thinker just to name 2.

"Shatterstar said:

"Honestly I can't imagine a scenario in which it would be of any interest to reveal who he is..."

"Killing Joke is the only time I care to ever see Joker as a real person, even if the story possibly isn't true."

"inferiorego said:

"Killing Joke is the only time I care to ever see Joker as a real person, even if the story possibly isn't true."

You and I and so many agree with this. So if they were to ever expand upon his days as a normal man, Killing Joke's orgin should be the foundation, IMO. "Hush Returns" didn't work, though. I think the reason was that The Joker was far too sane; he remembered his wife completely and had even a photo of her (if the whole house blew up, how did he get it?). He acted like a normal husband hellbent on avenging his wife; they just completely cast Joker's current persona aside in favor of exploring his past.

I personally like The Killing Joke origin because of the "normal man goes insane" -scenario. Having him be a career criminal before falling into the chemical vat only emphasizes he did crime for work. Meaning he didn't probably choose it as his tool of causing chaos because of acting according to the hopeless outlook on life he displays so clearly in Killing Joke (and Emperor Joker, for example). It is more loyal to his character to choose crime to cause chaos, not to actually make him able to support himself or benefit from it personally. This would thrust him in to the category of common criminals (even Batman doesn't actually believe The Joker is a common criminal. Whenver he says so, he's just trying to antagonize the Joker). The Joker is a distrupter of order; he could take over the whole of Gotham's criminal enterprise if the actually wanted to, but chooses not to. Killing Batman would help him complete his criminal career if he wanted to reach the top, yet he never actually does it.

They could start with baby steps: just tell the man's real first name, for godssakes. Or just verify it's either Jack, Jasper or whatever. They don't have to blow their load with one story. DC could just make a revelation, see how the majority of readers and critics respond and move on to reveal one of the origins is the real one and so on."

Isn't that scenario wiped out from the continuation?

I mean, after Anarky was cancelled the possibility has never been addressed in other magazines. Slapping it to another universe would also go hand in hand with the origin and existence of Duela Dent (assuming Joker of that universe really was her biological father).

But eh..I don't know. I'm not totally against Joker having a child. He did display a humane need to pass on his genes by trying to knock Harley up during Last Laugh. He is one diverse psycho: on the other hand he is willing to let Superman kill him for nothing just to make him suffer emotionally Then again, he often shows a keen sense of self-preservation which is uncommon for the truly insane. Which I why I don't get people who are fanatically against the "super-sanity" explonation.

And Anarky, too, was/is an uncommon anarchist. So in that sense, it was good foreshadowing. I think the most common argument against it (and a valid one it is) is that the Joker is far too frigid and asexual to be a daddy. And rape just ain't his style.

He burned off his own fingerprints with acid. What fun!

"I agree that exposing his real identity would seriously hurt the character, but my point is that the whole cousin thing seems like a plot hole.

Yes, his family may be dead, but records of their existence remain. All Batman (or the cops) really need to do is find out the name of Melvin's mother's sister or brother and his/her son's name and voilá. they'd know who the Joker is/was."

"He burned off his own fingerprints with acid. What fun!"

"likalaruku said:

"He burned off his own fingerprints with acid. What fun!"

You mean Anarky?"

Wow. I always had the idea the chemicals messed up his prints just like they turned his hair and nails green.

"Wow. I always had the idea the chemicals messed up his prints just like they turned his hair and nails green."

"Its like Wolverine is really James Howlett? Woopdidamndoo that was worth 30 years of waiting. What a let down."

Woot. Today I got Batman Confidential 24. It sure didn't take the Joker very long to identify Batman in disguise, did it?

to me, it seems like some of you might be missing the point of the joker.  he doesn't have a background because of what he represents:  chaos.  if you give him a name, a family, an identity, then you attach some sort of logical order to his life, and this would be completely paradoxical to the character himself.   even though we'd have our fun sifting through the comics, looking for hints, and following the storyline if they gave the joker a past, remember that the idea is always bigger than plot.  we're not meant to relate because we live inside the safe and structured world of our minds, where things make sense and we go about our existence with a sense of the rules.    the joker is not this, never will be this, and never should be this.  he is a human without a past, an isolated incident, just as all anarchy is. 

I like his having multiple fake past back stories.  It's just enough to satisfy, but doesn't ruin the his mysteriousness.

@chex: I always assume his real name Jack Napier. I agreed that he is the villians with the mysterious past. In Arkham city in one of his interview tapes he finally unitentionally remember his past only thing he never mentions his real name only his deceased wife and how it all goes to become what he is now. He is a very interesting character.