What issue(s) was that, and what was the context?
**Menocchio ** might be referring to BATMAN: THE KILLING JOKE, by Alan Moore and Brian Bolland. The Joker paralyzes and molests Barbara Gordon and kidnaps Commissioner Gordon to drive him insane.
Ok, I am back from my vacation, and ready to post again. Now, I think I am begining to understand. “The killing Joke”, is an exception to the rule. It was also clearly not for children. It is not what the average viewer sees in an issue of Batman. When Menocchio said" I mean, I really liked that story, and there’s a place for it, but it should be the exception, not the rule." , I believe that he is either defining words differently then most people do, or simply lying, and he really does mind when exceptions like “the killing joke” occur.
I have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
Here is what I meant:
Since the 1980’s and 1990’s there have been several excellent comics that used graphic violence and sexuality alongside superheroism. For example: Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, and The Killing Joke. These were brilliant stories.
However, their level of graphicness has become more and more common since then. This is wrong, and unnecessary. Superhero comics should be PG rated by default, because the genre should be kid-centric by default. Upping the explictness of comics will not necessarily improve their quality and can only decrease their accessibility. I mean, the last Robin was tortured to death with a power drill. That’s just going too far.
You say “The killing Joke” was clearly not meant for children. Obviously not, as far as its creators were concerned, but why did it star Batman? Batman’s been a favorite of kids since Robin rolled around in 1940, at least. Isn’t this a bit like casting Mickey Mouse in a Tarantino film? I’m not being an absolutist. There is room for R-rated superheroes, and tons of room for exploring mature films. But the main lines of superheroes should remain kid-accessible in both format (short stories, no crossover, cheap and availiable at newstands) and content.
I’m honestly perplexed why people are so defensive on this point. I’m not demanding huge censorship. This is a genre in which one of the darker character dresses like Dracula and, unarmed, beats up hordes of gunmen. It’s absurd. It’s, dare I say it, childish. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s why I love it. Why is it so insulting that I think it’s important that superheroes stay good and absurd, and readable by the young?
Menocchio. Because we demand new heroes.
Alan Moore addressed this very topic far more articulately than I in his introduction to Frank Miller’s BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. Basically he talks about how the audience changes in sophistication as time goes on and how creators of fiction must re-define heroes to suit their audience’s changing tastes.
The Killing Joke is meant to explore the possible origins and depths of the Joker’s psychosis-- that’s why it starred the Batman. To an extent, it also a study of the weird dynamic between Batman/Joker with the framing device of two lunatics in an insane asylum joke providing the capstone, culminating with these two sworn enemies laughing together in the rain.
I agree that as a storytelling medium, comics should be marketed more to children because that’s where our readership comes from.
I agree that as a genre, superheroes should be for all ages – with both mature and restrained age-appropiate content available – because there’s plenty of storytelling to explore on both ends of the spectrum.
The graphic violence isn’t the problem-- it’s how widespread it’s become.
Askia and Menocchio, my answer is different from both of yours, but it is probably quite familiar, by now. Batman was created by a grown-up. Sure, he was often marketed to kids, but none the less, he has the potential to explore grown-up issues. People, such as comic book writers create scripts that detail the necessary end of madness (Joker not just killing red-shirts) **and ** are well told. As for said grimness leaking into the monthlies, I’m not convinced.
“My” Batman, which is to say Mike W. Barr’s Batman, eschewed neither guns nor extreme sanctions (except to stay on the good side of the law). He was a classic pulp hero in a silly costume.
The “Batman” in comics since they made Denny O’Neil editor is another matter. Over the years he degenerated into the supervillain who protects other supervillains from the police. He’s morally responsible for everything his version of the Joker does. He’s a killer, bad as they come. He just doesn’t pull the trigger.
DC Editorial is so dumb.
The old Batman was a killer, the Dark Knight Batman was a killer. For the most part of his “career” he was not. However it was still hinted that he could and would kill if forced to do so. Here is a guy who has no powers. He is smart and strong, but he has no mega strength or laser eyes. Criminals are supposed to fear him, and that fear has to be based on something - what he might do to them if they don’t “comply”. He doesn’t kill, but there is always the hint that he might. Batman isn’t about the suit or powers, it is about inflicting fear on criminals. That’s why the dark suit, the bat symbol, the rules about operating at night, and the borderline mental problem. I liked the dark versions of Batman personally. It was a different perspective. There have been plenty of comic book heroes who killed - Captain America killed nazis, the Punisher kills gangsters, Wolverine slices people, Hulk smashes random enemies, and Batman has occasionally killed. It’s all about how and why. It’s about how it is presented. To have Batman kill someone in an all out fight for life is OK, if it is the only option and the baddie is so totally evil and dangerous that no other option will keep him (Batman) alive. To have him murder someone gratuitously would not be good. It would also wipe out the rogues gallery and destroy one if his greatest “powers” - the ability to get information. He can’t interrogate someone he has just killed.
Besides, he is the good guy. He can’t become a stone cold murderer and remain a good guy.
OK, Steve explained Bats very well.