So... what exactly happens in the last few panels of this book? Does Batman kill The Joker, or what? I'm totally confused.
The Killing Joke
- Thread starter scottishpunk
- Start date
- Status
If you mean the "strangling" scene, it is simply Batman restraining the Joker as the police (seen in the distance) arrive. The focus on the water (in the comic-book equivalant of a panning shot) is not to disguise anything nefarious about Batman's actions, but is merely a reprise of the opening of the book. Anyways, aspects of the story have been incorporated into the main Batman titles - meaning that the events depicted are (mostly) accepted as canon. The true identity of The Joker is not the one seen in the book though - Denny O'Neil was VERY clear about that particular point soon after its' release.
I pretty much agree with BigWords, but I can see how that scene could be seen as Batman killing the Joker; I don't really have anything useful to add except that I love The Killing Joke. Good read.
Last edited:
No, Batman didn't killed the Joker, since the KJ is part of the mainstream continuity and he's still alive.
As a sidenote, the Joker never found out that Barbara and Batgirl were the same person.
As a sidenote, the Joker never found out that Barbara and Batgirl were the same person.
What he said. There are people who believe that Batman did kill the Joker, but if he did, this story would not really exist in the cannon, when in fact, it does. Also, IMO, it would go against the very theme of the story, which is that the fate of Batman and The Joker are intertwined.
My personal interpretation of the joke he had just told: The Joker is the first inmate in the asylum, obviously crazy. Batman is the second inmate. He makes the sane decision for reasons that are crazy. Batman laughs because he finally sees the funny side--he knows now that he and the Joker are more alike than he ever wanted to admit. If he couldn't kill him before because of his moral code, be certainly can't kill him now, because he identifies with him, if only a little bit.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 4,827
- Reaction score
- 336
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Website
- home.comcast.net
The Joker is shown to be killed by Robin in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. If he was killed twice that would be inconsistent (although they might do it anyway).
I loved that movie, like really, really loved it, but it is non-canon to the comic.
You're still right, though, Batman did not kill him.
Carry on.
I interpret the joke as a metaphor of what Batman offers him.
The asylum means madness, and the two inmates are Batman and the Joker. The outer side of the asylum is sanity. Since the first inmate crosses the gap with no problem, it means that Batman might be a bit crazy, but he operates normally in sanity's side.
Batman offers to rehabilitate the Joker. This would be the "light bridge" the first inmate offers to the second. But the second inmate doesn't trusts him, thinking the first one will turn it off as he's halfway across. This would mean the Joker is afraid of being abandoned as he crosses the gap between madness and sanity.
As a sidenote, in another graphic novel, Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth, at the end the Joker tells Batman that if the madhouse (the outer world) rejects him, he'll always have a place in the asylum.
Batman does not kill the Joker.
If he did, it would totally change the character. The fact that Batman doesn't kill is what makes him Batman, it is how he sees himself as different from criminals like the Joker. As much as Batman might want to, after all the things the Joker has done to Batman, and the people of Gothan, he never will.
We'll just have to wait for Jason Todd to take another crack at him.
If he did, it would totally change the character. The fact that Batman doesn't kill is what makes him Batman, it is how he sees himself as different from criminals like the Joker. As much as Batman might want to, after all the things the Joker has done to Batman, and the people of Gothan, he never will.
We'll just have to wait for Jason Todd to take another crack at him.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 124
I think he kills him. The story doesn't make any sense at all if he doesn't kill him. That's the "joke"--that the Joker misreads Batman so badly. I disagree that the point is that Batman doesn't kill--the point is that Batman does kill.
I realize that if the story is to be canon, then Batman can't have killed the Joker here, but this would hardly be the first time that the original intention of a story was reversed for canon.
I realize that if the story is to be canon, then Batman can't have killed the Joker here, but this would hardly be the first time that the original intention of a story was reversed for canon.
I think that he doesn't. When Batman finds Gordon, whom the Joker was trying to torture to madness, Gordon asks Batman to bring him in by the book: alive to face the legal consequences of his actions. "We have to show him that our way works!"
That's the reason why Batman doesn't kills him, he doesn't even beats him to a pulp, like the Joker says at the end.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 124
But Batman doesn't believe Gordon's way works, and doesn't feel he has to prove himself to anyone. That's why Batman goes ahead and kills the Joker at the end, despite Gordon's comments. Gordon comes across as an idiot and a bad father, not the voice of law and order.
That's just my take on it--the ending was probably meant to be ambiguous.
That's just my take on it--the ending was probably meant to be ambiguous.
I agree with that, but I've always believed the one thing that Batman truly believes in is not killing anyone. Ever.
But then, I haven't read all the comics, and it's possible there could be some change to that somewhere.
It's possible that the story was never intended to be canon, and that the Barbara Gordon stuff was brought into the continuity because the story was so popular. However, I don't agree with your point about Joker "misreading" Batman so badly. For him to assume that Batman would not kill is an assumption that everyone makes, because it's what he tells everyone and what he lives by. It wouldn't be a misreading. For him to kill the Joker would be wildly out of character (although not impossible), and it would mean the end of both the Joker AND Batman. Quite possibly the point of the story, if it were conceived as non-canon.
I thought he was dead. Batman, I mean. Didn't he just recently die? I'm not sure of how or whodunit, but I know Dick too up the mantle. Didn't he?
eta: OK, just did some wiki-searching and it seems you are right...he is in the past. What. I have no idea where to even start in piecing together the comics I need to buy to know what's going on in Batworld right now.
More importantly, it is rumored that Bruce returns this year in a mini-series written by Grant Morrison, who I love. So, that works.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 124
Well, Batman killed lots of people before the comics code. I never thought of Batman as unwilling to kill for ethical reasons--quite the opposite. He's a vigilante, and is willing to break the law when he feels that's the right thing to do. Keep in mind that this particular story is now about twenty years old, and that it also came out at a time when DC comics were making a lot of changes in their approach--including killing a lot of long time characters. A few years earlier than this, DC was really following the cartoon approach, where people get hit over and over and stand up in the last frame and escape (or go to jail and then get out again two years later).
I could probably write a four page essay on why I think the Batman kills the Joker, but there's not much point, especially as I acknowledge it's just my opinion.
I could probably write a four page essay on why I think the Batman kills the Joker, but there's not much point, especially as I acknowledge it's just my opinion.
It wasn't really the comics code. It happened long before that. It was the fact that Batman was far too good at what he did. If he kept killing people, there would be no one left, and nothing for him to. And for the record, he did not STOP killing people. They retconned him and decided that he had NEVER killed anyone. There are various interpretations of the character, but one truism that is more or less accepted by everyone is that he does not kill.
The law, yes. His own moral code, no. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is that he knows that if he started killing people, he would eventually be killing teenagers for shoplifting. His "one rule" keeps him grounded.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 124
Well, the problem with retconning is that you have to talk about what the situation was at one particular point in time. I'm not sure when they decided that he had NEVER killed anyone, but if you look at 1988, the whole DC universe was one huge retcon and most of the retconning was going in the direction of killing. They were killing characters all over the place. Characters far more important than the Joker in 1988. The image most people had in their mind of the Joker was Caesar Romero.
When the movie came out in 1989, I remember long discussions about it, and this book. No one ever suggested that Batman was unwilling to kill--quite the opposite. Superman is unwilling to kill. Batman is not only the guy that doesn't drop everything to save the hostages, he's the guy that would be willing to kill if he had to.
I wouldn't be surprised if they meant this book to be canon, and for it to be the end of the Joker. It was sort of the way things were going at the time--secondary characters got one last book that explored their personality in a way that earlier books never did, then they killed 'em. Weirdly, this book made the Joker so popular that they had to keep him alive.
When the movie came out in 1989, I remember long discussions about it, and this book. No one ever suggested that Batman was unwilling to kill--quite the opposite. Superman is unwilling to kill. Batman is not only the guy that doesn't drop everything to save the hostages, he's the guy that would be willing to kill if he had to.
I wouldn't be surprised if they meant this book to be canon, and for it to be the end of the Joker. It was sort of the way things were going at the time--secondary characters got one last book that explored their personality in a way that earlier books never did, then they killed 'em. Weirdly, this book made the Joker so popular that they had to keep him alive.
There have been many things, particularly in the DC Universe, that have simply been retconned out of existance and never mentioned again. In any event, they don't deal with this. If it was accepted that he killed people and then stopped as soon as he met a more formidable foe, it was never mentioned again. For this reason, it's commonly believed that he never did.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 124
That's fair enough, but the DC retconned version is not the only interpretation of the story. Retconning serves the needs of the comic line as a whole, but may or may not serve a particular book best. Personally, I think this particular book has the right to stand as its own self, with any interpretation of it coming from what was written before and at the time it was written, not what people have done with the story since then. Not that a lot of interesting stuff (Oracle) hasn't been spun off of this book, but I really doubt that Moore had that in mind when he wrote it.
There's always been a tension between vigilante and lawman in Batman, but I think at the time this book was written, people would have no problem at least accepting the possibility that Batman would kill the Joker. Read the story, and tell me if the average person in that situation wouldn't kill the bastard if he had his hands on his neck. Batman here stands in contrast to Gordon, who actually wouldn't have done it, even though there's not a jury in the world who wouldn't have forgiven him. It was made ambiguous because comics almost never have definitive deaths, and even when they do, they resurrect characters whenever they feel like it. So you can argue that the ambiguity was to leave options for future writers, but that if you let the book stand alone...he kills him.
That was pretty much my take on the joke at the end.
In regards to the "Batman never kills" debate, what about "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller. True, he doesn't really kill the Joker here (breaks his neck), but the Joker essentially dies at his hands. Is this book not really canon either?
No, it's not canon, but only because the final fate of Batman was not decided when it was written. They didn't want to be locked into that future with the regular Batman continuity. Much has happened with Batman since it was written that isn't in there, such as Tim Drake. I believe they said it was one of several possible futures for Batman, in the same way that The flashbacks in The Killing Joke represented one of several possible origins of the Joker.
As for Batman killing, if it would be anyone, it would be the Joker.
He didn't, but he should have. Batman gets a pass on the "no-killing code" from me though, because I'm a fan of the guy and it's been fairly well established that he's a little bit nuts and obsessive and egomaniacal, so his stringent adherence to his personal code of morality even as it flies in the face of practicality and logic makes sense in its own weird way. But for other heroes, stories like The Killing Joke are why the whole "we don't kill bad guys" thing doesn't make sense anymore, and why it was silly for the world and other supers to get upset with Wonder Woman when she killed Maxwell Lord.
- Status