OK, having bitched about how Stormwatch and Suicide Squad are too Image Comics "bad-ass", this one goes too far the other way.
I bought it because I liked Gail Simone's work on Birds of Prey and Sinister Six. I was expecting something perhaps a little more akin to Rucka's excellent work on Batwoman.
Instead... I don't know. It was very 1970s Batgirl, kind of cute and quirky, and a little bit insecure. Batman is shown as being a big marshmellow, and Nightwing is a over-protective ex-boyfriend. There was a layer of frosted saccharine over the entire title which left me feeling a little unwell.
Batgirl faces down two villains in this book: a deranged retired soldier called Mirror, and a shot journo turned mesmerising kookball named Gretal. Each of the villains has a sympathetic back story, which is pretty typical of Gail Simone's work. But the sympathy in each case, and Batgirl's "group hug" handling of each threat was just... dull. Batgirl is described as the "smart one" of the Batfamily, and therefore not as prone to violent confrotnation of her enemies. the character kind of demonstrates that, but there is nothng particularly exciting or even clever about the character, or the plot.
What I think has happened here is the editor has given the writer too much rein and let the ethos overshadow the pace of the book. Or perhaps the book is written to a particular market - teenaged girls. Either way, it didn't resonate with me.
So, apparently, you just chose to overlook my words of wisdom.
Quote:
Simone's one of the most overrated writers ever conceived. The only reason she got any positive attention is because she's a younger female writer who simply chose not to rock the boat as much as Grayson did.
But the reality is that they weren't that different from each other. Grayson was just more open about the fact that she was using the character she was charged with to push a personal agenda. Simone did the same, but no one spoke up about it since rearranging Barbara's character wasn't as severe as turning Dick into a glitter boy.
Fuck you Dave. I'm fucking tired of your shit! You should go take a dirt nap just like the Aussie Labor Party!
But...uh....yeah. If I were to write Batgirl the not stupid way--basically the anti-Simone way--I would have taken a lesson from Frank Miller and made her a head strong teenage bat-groupie fuck up that sniffs out trouble and ends up making huge messes that she has to figure out how to clean up on her own.
Not necessarily stupid, but a terribly naive leap-before-she-looks type who eventually forms some semblance of a method to her approaches without ever making an exact science out of it as Batman was able to.
And that touchy-feely reflection of Simone's character onto Barbara's wouldn't exist. If I were to seriously consider a Batgirl character (which I wouldn't, because it's stupid), I would imagine it being driven by a gung-ho, beat 'em up idealism. Not an 'I'm okay, you're okay' lecture. Especially in Gotham for fuck's sake.
So, apparently, you just chose to overlook my words of wisdom.
Quote:
Simone's one of the most overrated writers ever conceived. The only reason she got any positive attention is because she's a younger female writer who simply chose not to rock the boat as much as Grayson did.
But the reality is that they weren't that different from each other. Grayson was just more open about the fact that she was using the character she was charged with to push a personal agenda. Simone did the same, but no one spoke up about it since rearranging Barbara's character wasn't as severe as turning Dick into a glitter boy.
Fuck you Dave. I'm fucking tired of your shit! You should go take a dirt nap just like the Aussie Labor Party!
Yeah I was thinking you'd chime in. On this one, I agree.
One other thing: some random people of Gotham are shown hauling up a crime lord suspended on a line from a bridge. This apparently is because it is in Gotham's spirit. WTF? When have Gothamites ever been anything other than suckers or punks?
Or perhaps the book is written to a particular market - teenaged girls. Either way, it didn't resonate with me.
I read a few issues of Batgirl where she found one of the men who helped Joker Shoot her and butt rape her. I thought it was ok,but not worth the cover price. I never finished the story. Next time the comic shop has a sale I'll at least pick up the rest of that story.
I remember when comic book fans were aggressively debating on whether the Joker sexually abused Babs or not. Now it seems like everybody is pretty much resigned to it as fact, and everytime the subject comes up we're all yes, yes he did.
Moore's insinuation in The Killing Joke of the Joker undressing Barbara and photographing her was that she was raped while she was bleeding from an abdominal wound. There's nothing more explicit than that insinuation. It is a very hard core story from that perspective.
I was aware that some readers of the book objected to the Batman sharing a laugh with the Joker at the end. But the joke itself and the laughter is a switch from the gritty realism of the Batman offering to rehabilitate the Joker, poised on the edge of knowing that they were inevitably going to kill each other otherwise, to symbolism. The joke is a symbol, the laughter is a symbol, and the playing card on the back jacket is a symbol: that, at tne end of the day, the two characters have manifested their grief in fundamentally similar ways (whereas Gordon is stronger than them both).
Its a testiment to Moore's remarkable skills that we're still talking about this comic, decades later. Moore might say, as he has somewhere, that its just a Batman story. But it isn't. Its a defintion of the two characters. Its a psychological examination of how people react to the world's random injustice (Batman, the Joker, Gordon). Its Nietszchean and amoral and nihilist. Its a fucking clever read.
But please, no more gags about a woman being anally raped. I know girls who have been raped. Its just not funny.
You know,I don't think I've seen sexual behavior from Joker. I don't think I've sen him in bed with Harley or anyone. It's like he only knows insane violence.
Moore's insinuation in The Killing Joke of the Joker undressing Barbara and photographing her was that she was raped while she was bleeding from an abdominal wound. There's nothing more explicit than that insinuation. It is a very hard core story from that perspective.
I think Moore's insinuation was that it was Joker's insinuation (without actually being reality).
I just don't get the feeling that Joker's condition.....perspective...allows him anything even resembling a sex drive. I think that would involve him too much in "the joke" for his comfort.
The only wording that Moore ever used to describe Joker's assault on Barbara was "molestation". If he's gonna take the opportunity to clarify and say that it was a rape, then I imagine he'd use stronger wording than "molest". I'd say "violation" would make it more definitively a case of rape.
I was aware that some readers of the book objected to the Batman sharing a laugh with the Joker at the end. But the joke itself and the laughter is a switch from the gritty realism of the Batman offering to rehabilitate the Joker, poised on the edge of knowing that they were inevitably going to kill each other otherwise, to symbolism. The joke is a symbol, the laughter is a symbol, and the playing card on the back jacket is a symbol: that, at tne end of the day, the two characters have manifested their grief in fundamentally similar ways (whereas Gordon is stronger than them both).
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Anyway, Bats killed Joker on that end panel? So how come he's still alive? (not trying to dispute it, just curious) isn't the killing joke canon, with Babs actually becoming wheelchair-ridden after it?
You know,I don't think I've seen sexual behavior from Joker. I don't think I've sen him in bed with Harley or anyone. It's like he only knows insane violence.
Wasn't he shown to be getting dressed after an encounter with some random woman in All Star Batman?
Anyway, Bats killed Joker on that end panel? So how come he's still alive? (not trying to dispute it, just curious) isn't the killing joke canon, with Babs actually becoming wheelchair-ridden after it?
Superboy Prime punched a wall.
Really, though, the ending is ambiguous on purpose. This is Alan Moore, after all. After writing the final Silver Age Superman story in which he combined Supes's two worst enemies (Luthor and Brainiac) into one creature and turning Mxyzptlk into a Bruce Dern looking psycho, why would he not take the chance to write the ultimate and final Batman/Joker confrontation. But it's work for hire with DC's money makers, so he just skirts around it.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
I was aware that some readers of the book objected to the Batman sharing a laugh with the Joker at the end. But the joke itself and the laughter is a switch from the gritty realism of the Batman offering to rehabilitate the Joker, poised on the edge of knowing that they were inevitably going to kill each other otherwise, to symbolism. The joke is a symbol, the laughter is a symbol, and the playing card on the back jacket is a symbol: that, at tne end of the day, the two characters have manifested their grief in fundamentally similar ways (whereas Gordon is stronger than them both).
... nah. That's a very fucking long bow. Batman reaches out and grabs the Joker by the shoulders while they're laughing (unless he's snapping the Joker's collarbone). His hands are nowhere near his neck.
Plus, it doesn't flow through from the story - there's discussion about redemption, rejected because the Joker says (in the context of the joke) that he doesn't trust a crazy man (Batman) to help him escape his own craziness.
And, as if Batman is going to kill the Joker in front of a dozen police cars.
The rain at the end is how the book begins. At best, the rain splattering into the water is either symbolic of grief, or symbolic of nothingness - the black drops hitting the black water. Its the lack of meaning in the world which has driven the Joker to his insanity. The laughter stopping doesn't mean the Joker is dead. It means that once the Joker is hauled away to jail, once Batman goes back to sit to brood in his cave, once the laughter and the action stops: all that is left is nothingness, the lack of meaning to life, the lack of reasons behind the hideous deaths which have scarred these two men. The cause of the Joker's insanity, and Batman's insanity, is that there is no reason, purpose or meaning behind the events which have caused them to get to where they are.
I know, but I figured that it'd get a rise out of Pariah either way.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Although someone does make the point that Batman is crazier than the Joker, because he believes the Joker can be cured just as he was cured (and he isn't). At least the Joker accepts he is insane.
My impression was that Moore was trying to show that the Joker was the first madman who had already made the leap (works as a metaphor too, plus shows the power of madness), and was trying to help the other one over to the other side (though he's mad, his intentions are pure)...Batman is the second madman who refuses at first (at the end of the first line you, when he says, 'What, Are you crazy?') implying he's sane, only to reveal he's also mad when he gives his reason. Basically Joker is trying to make the point that Batman is in denial like the second madman who tries to espouse what sounds like sanity, but is just as crazy, albeit in a different, less obvious, scared way (in thoughts more than actions)
Never quite liked the Batman laughing at the end, really took away from the perfect story. Wish he had instead shown Batman being overwhelmed in a different way, maybe flashing back to his parent's senseless deaths after being confronted with the fact that the semblance of control he's built up all those years (Batman ultimately is a symbol of control, of triumphing over human frailties, and being able to master chaos) is all for nought, and he's again that young boy whose idyllic life could be shattered in an instant.
What a dumbshit.
It's always the ones that "hate the laugh at the end" that understand the characters the least (at least in the context of this story).
I never really liked THE KILLING JOKE, and consider it the most over-rated of the works Alan Moore produced. And (like WATCHMEN) it had these bland 9-panel pages that you can see were done from a full script, where the artist just followed directions and didn't add anything to the story. And "the laugh at the end" was just as annoying as "the Comedian is dead" thing in WATCHMEN # 1. I almost only read the first issue of WATCHMEN because I thought it fell so flat, but fortunately I stuck around for the greatness that followed it. WATCHMEN didn't really start to take off until issue 3. And for me, THE KILLING JOKE never went anywhere. My opinion, it was much ado about nothing.
My favorite Joker story remains BATMAN 251, by Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams.
And the Englehart/Rogers stories from DETECTIVE 471-476.
My impression was that Moore was trying to show that the Joker was the first madman who had already made the leap (works as a metaphor too, plus shows the power of madness), and was trying to help the other one over to the other side (though he's mad, his intentions are pure)...Batman is the second madman who refuses at first (at the end of the first line you, when he says, 'What, Are you crazy?') implying he's sane, only to reveal he's also mad when he gives his reason. Basically Joker is trying to make the point that Batman is in denial like the second madman who tries to espouse what sounds like sanity, but is just as crazy, albeit in a different, less obvious, scared way (in thoughts more than actions)
Never quite liked the Batman laughing at the end, really took away from the perfect story. Wish he had instead shown Batman being overwhelmed in a different way, maybe flashing back to his parent's senseless deaths after being confronted with the fact that the semblance of control he's built up all those years (Batman ultimately is a symbol of control, of triumphing over human frailties, and being able to master chaos) is all for nought, and he's again that young boy whose idyllic life could be shattered in an instant.
What a dumbshit.
It's always the ones that "hate the laugh at the end" that understand the characters the least (at least in the context of this story).
Ha! The laugh makes it legendary!
Wonderboy, the reason for that is because:
a. its totally out of character. (How often has Batman laughed since DKR?)
b. its totally inappropriate. Batman was nearly killed, Barbara was raped and maimed, Gordon was kidnapped, beaten and tortured;
c. it bridges the two characters. The laugh means they're both crazy, and they both get it.
Thanks for the your explanation, Dave. I mostly agree with your interpretations. I understand what was attempted, but for me it just doesn't work.
I think your best point is about how the shared laugh bridges the shared mental instability of both characters.
I didn't interpret the story as manifesting the complete meaninglesness of their lives. I think within the story, their actions are significant. I interpret the raindrops hitting the ground and fading away into the puddles as life going on in spite of the significance of what occurred with them. And as you said, the merging of the two also manifests their shared experience and instability. Your interpretation might be closer to Moore's intent, as it would parallel Moore's scripted nihilistic views of Rorschach in "The Abyss Gazes Also" chapter of WATCHMEN.
On the subject of Batgirl, I've never liked the character, and consider her a mood-killer for the avenger-of-the-night sophistication of Batman stories.
She is a saturday-morning-cartoon level character that dumbs down any storyline. And having her crippled and/or raped by the Joker in THE KILLING JOKE, and then having her become "Oracle", permanently crippled and turned all dark drama, is a pathetic attempt to bring seriousness to an inherently silly character.
It reminds me of a 1989 COMICS JOURNAL review that talked about late-1980's comics, modernized and darkened up with so-called "adult" elements of "realism", that created a whole class of comics that were too immature for adults, and too adult for children, and appropriate to neither audience.
The "dark" Batgirl is a manifestation the cartoonishly dark silliness that rapidly shrunk the comic book market in the 1986-1996 period. Where publishers focused too much on the adult market, and largely abandoned material that for decades had brought in new younger readers, focusing entirely on exploiting a thinning, aging fanboy market. A very small cult of readers. THE KILLING JOKE, and its ongoing silliness with Batgirl's wheelchair continuity, is a character that perfectly manifests that splicing of the dark with the juvenile, and the darkly silly result.
Moore's script makes it pretty clear Batman isn't choking the Joker, but Brian Bolland has hinted that he did. It doesn't matter anyway, the ending means whatever the fuck you want it to mean.
Also, I read the first 10 or so issues of Simone's Batgirl and enjoyed it. It's nothing like Secret Six but that's not what I was expecting. I have no idea/don't care how it holds up as a Bat-related book or if Gotham's random citizens were out of character, but it was a cool superhero series.
I kind of enjoy Simone's Batgirl, actually. It's not my favorite book on the market or anything, but it's more or less what I expect from a Batgirl comic.
The little tragic romance with Ricky was kind of cute, I thought. Her roommate being a transexual was a little odd...but that's the only thing I've disliked so far.
The Ventriliquist issue for villain month has been one of my favorites so far. Simone has reinvented the character in grande form.
i never heard the "he killed him at the end" theory. and, i dunno, i kinda like it. obviously ambiguous, obviously hidden, but... it does fit. the entire confrontation, batman is telling the joker [paraphrasing] "i don't want either of us to kill each other, but we're running out of alternatives". in other words, he's already putting out the notion that its not just a chance joker will kill him -- he's acknowledging the reverse.
then the last page is 9 panels. the first three are the joke finale. the second three are the two laughing and sirens. the bottom three is "silence, fade to black" style. but the first of those final three panels clearly shows the two characters standing there - just their feet. but the only sound still to be heard (read) is the sirens. the laughter is cut abruptly in the panel before - not even a complete "H" in a "HA". this might be the more appropriate ending to the story, not just because of the title, but really the first time the origin of the joker is told is also his finale.
batman reaches out. offers one last chance. joker acknowledges the attempt, declines, and they both recognize their fate.
it's not bad!
that elseworldsness aside...
there is another story (black and white? legends of the dark knight? i forget) where batman visits barbara in the hospital in a scene that takes place just after the killing joke. she's pissed at him, having heard from other cops that they found him laughing with the joker right after he paralyzed her. outside of her being wheelchair bound, its one of the few references to that story in regular comics -- and i think the only reference to the laughing.
Also, I read the first 10 or so issues of Simone's Batgirl and enjoyed it. It's nothing like Secret Six but that's not what I was expecting. I have no idea/don't care how it holds up as a Bat-related book or if Gotham's random citizens were out of character, but it was a cool superhero series.
