Batman: The Killing Joke (Higgins & Bolland)

[AquaParade]

I posted this in the DC relaunch thread, but here's a thread anyway:

Hi all, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the classic Alan Moore tale "Batman: The Killing Joke". Even more than that, I'd be curious to hear your opinion on the coloring done by John Higgins and Brian Bolland.

My Absolute Edition of "The Killing Joke" arrived yesterday and I've fallen in love with the book all over again, after leaving it behind for over a decade. Aside from the gorgeous presentation of the Absolute line, and the concise yet layered execution of the story by Moore, my enjoyment was greatly bolstered by reading the book with the original coloring, done by Watchmen's John Higgins. Wow, if you ask me, Brian Bolland really screwed the pooch with his re-coloring of the book, which is the more common version to be found. I enjoy the book twice as much now with Higgins psychedelic canvas, as it compliments the insanity of the story.

EDIT: Link to a good rundown of the difference in coloring - https://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/7828621.html

[Leo656]

It's good. I don't have a strong preference either way for the coloring. I grew up with one of the earlier editions, but I purchased the hardcover edition that was re-colored and included the story from "Batman: Black & White" a few years ago, and it was fine. They both look good to me for different reasons; I often defer to authorial intent and they've said the re-coloring better fits their original vision, but I can see it from either side.

It will most likely remain my personal canon Joker origin for a long as I live no matter how many different versions exist. So far they've all fallen short and I feel like Moore, despite wanting things to be open to interpretation, more or less delivered the final word on the subject. Thus, I generally roll my eyes at every take that's come since. My writing teacher used to say, "If you can't rework an old idea and do it BETTER than the people who did it before you, then don't bother." And anyone who thinks they could ever out-write Alan Moore is arrogant and foolish.

The only thing that bothers me is that Moore himself has dismissed it often and hard. But then, he's generally a crab-ass.

[AquaParade]

Interesting thoughts. I hear you on authorial intent. Typically, I might feel that way too, but I find Higgins colors to fit the mood so much better. The drama his colors conveyed enhanced the story. Also, I found Bollands flashback sequences sort of corny with their color-drained palette, leaving only red for choice objects in each scene....cause he's The Red Hood I guess?
Either way, it's great fun to have both versions in one book in order to compare the two of them. As Higgins says in the afterword, he prefers a 'past that is "multiple choice', which is quite fitting, given the material.

Moore is def a crab. At this point, I'm convinced he only spits on his old work because he doesn't own it and would rather be remembered for his own creations. He hates DC and is willing to cut off an appendage or two to spite them. It comes back to how you feel about freelance work, I suppose, but it's somewhat understandable. Still, I don't believe him when he acts like the work isn't good.

Plus, it's funny to see how much the dude hates Morrison. Pretty sure Grant has just been successfully trolling the dude for a while now. Seems like he knows how to irritate Moore.

[Leo656]

Well, I do hear his criticism of that particular story. It's "ugly" (not the art, but the plot and what happens), it's mean-spirited, it's not his BEST work even though it's his most-talked about... pretty much everything he says is true.

It's just a case I encounter VERY often with people on any number of things be they comics, books, movie or what have you, where I hear their criticism and find it perfectly valid, BUT also feel like they take it way, way too far.

You're most likely right, in that he hates on his DC work purely because he doesn't get along with them anymore. The fact that waaaaaay back in the day, he was all-in on a goddamn Watchmen cartoon show and action figure line before they pulled the rug out from under him, kind of illustrates that his principles are very flexible and thus, a lot of what he says is at least a little bit sour grapes.

So yeah, I agree with his specific criticisms toward "Killing Joke" but I think he cares too much. It's also typical of writers to be hyper-critical of their own work. I just wish he could simply take the compliments people give him without feeling the need to derisively snort "It's not even THAT good of a story."

There's also something living in that beard of his, but I don't think I wanna know what.

I personally would love to see Moore and Morrison go at it in a "Pretentious C*cksucker" jousting match a'la American Gladiators. That would be keen. They both have done GREAT sh*t but they've both got their head jammed three feet up their own ass most of the time.

[AquaParade]

I just spent 45 minutes reading an account of the "feud" between Morrison and Moore. Morrison is definitely the bigger weirdo in this scenario, from what I've now read, but he's my favorite writer and I shouldn't be surprised.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

I just spent 45 minutes reading an account of the "feud" between Morrison and Moore. Morrison is definitely the bigger weirdo in this scenario, from what I've now read, but he's my favorite writer and I shouldn't be surprised.

Care to share a link, amigo?

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Care to share a link, amigo?

Good idea. https://tractorforklift.wordpress.co...rant-morrison/

Paints Morrison pretty bad, but to be fair, I've also found some bits of info in another article that aren't mentioned here. The author of this article seems to have left some relevant info out regarding some arguable aping of Morrison's work done by Moore, whether that info being left out is intentional or not, who knows. Interesting read nonetheless.

While I'm talking Morrison, let me just say he writes some of the best final issues in comics. Anyone with heartstrings should read the last issue of his Doom Patrol run (#63) or issue #12 of "The Invisibles", which can pretty much be read without context.

[AquaParade]

By the way, here are some examples of the difference in color:

https://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/7828621.html

[IMJ]

I have that absolute edition as well and I appreciated the re-coloring effort - but sometimes I wonder if that was done as an excuse to fill an Absolute edition for the book. It wouldn't have made the format without twice the page count, so....

It's a good story. I think it really gets it's fame from being one of the few times where the Joker is truly shown being an unhinged psychopath lacking completely in empathy. This as opposed to some dialog where someone explains how "twisted and evil" the Joker is, but on panel he just laughs and runs around doing weird ****. The Killing Joke takes an animated character and turns him into a scary guy given what he does with Barbara and so on.

I need to read it again, but that's how I left feeling about it. It's not that it's that captivating in it's art, or that there are truly exciting moments in it as much as it's a character study on actually making the Joker a ground level scary villain who kills, maims and rapes and then laughs about it.

[Leo656]

I pretty much agree with all that, but I do think the art elevates it to a certain degree, though.

Like, I seriously do feel that the story is so strong that it could work as a simple prose piece without pictures and still be just as captivating. But as we've seen with the animated adaptation, some mediocre art (and some bad line readings) can seriously undercut the work.

Honestly, I think the art in Killing Joke is still some of the all-time best Batman artwork that's ever been done. I still remember what it felt like to read it for the very first time at 7 years old; there was absolutely nothing else in mainstream super-hero comics that looked like that. Some of the regular monthly DC books felt just a little bit "flat" and ocasionally even lifeless by comparison. Nowadays with digital art programs even an amateur can produce pieces that outshine even Bolland's work but at the time of its release we'd never seen anything like it before. It was a revelation.

As I said, I can kind of feel either coloring style just fine but I think that only further speaks to how strong the linework is.

A bit off-topic, but this book kind of spoiled me as far as comic book art goes, and it's partly why I could never get into guys like Lawson or other "stylized" artists. I look at This and look at That, and where some people see "style" I just see people who don't want to work hard. Like Breyfogle's art is also "stylized" but it's also masterfully done. You can have "style" without it looking like you drew it with your feet.

Anyways, yeah, I really like the story but I've also really always loved the art.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I pretty much agree with all that, but I do think the art elevates it to a certain degree, though.

Like, I seriously do feel that the story is so strong that it could work as a simple prose piece without pictures and still be just as captivating. But as we've seen with the animated adaptation, some mediocre art (and some bad line readings) can seriously undercut the work.

Honestly, I think the art in Killing Joke is still some of the all-time best Batman artwork that's ever been done. I still remember what it felt like to read it for the very first time at 7 years old; there was absolutely nothing else in mainstream super-hero comics that looked like that. Some of the regular monthly DC books felt just a little bit "flat" and ocasionally even lifeless by comparison. Nowadays with digital art programs even an amateur can produce pieces that outshine even Bolland's work but at the time of its release we'd never seen anything like it before. It was a revelation.

As I said, I can kind of feel either coloring style just fine but I think that only further speaks to how strong the linework is.

A bit off-topic, but this book kind of spoiled me as far as comic book art goes, and it's partly why I could never get into guys like Lawson or other "stylized" artists. I look at This and look at That, and where some people see "style" I just see people who don't want to work hard. Like Breyfogle's art is also "stylized" but it's also masterfully done. You can have "style" without it looking like you drew it with your feet.

Anyways, yeah, I really like the story but I've also really always loved the art.

So I can absolutely appreciate that from the perspective of reading it when it came out. I didn't read the Killing Joke until years, years, years after it was released when sure, Bolland's linework is great, but it looks a little dated in much the same way that Silver Age linework looks dated.

But yeah, had I read this when it was new I probably would have been blown away by the drawing.

[AquaParade]

I think the art is fantastic. You can't really speak about it without referring to Alan Moore though, because he is so hands on in the direction/panel sequencing, that the "storytelling" credit can't all go to Bolland, but each panel is meaningful and easy to understand. The story is told with perfect precision.
But even leaving that behind, the actual linework itself is just gorgeous. Art is always subjective, but I have to imagine anyone could learn to appreciate it.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by AquaParade

without referring to Alan Moore

So although I'm sort of an "Iron Man guy", my favorite comic of all time is....



It is the only book I think I've written any kind of meaningful blurb about on the CGC census, and it was also oddly and luckily enough to be the first comic book I ever got as a kid. I actually keep that original copy I got from 1985 in the back of that slab's bag as a reader.

[AquaParade]

Originally Posted by IMJ

So although I'm sort of an "Iron Man guy", my favorite comic of all time is....

https://i.imgur.com/Dej3yYYm.jpg

It is the only book I think I've written any kind of meaningful blurb about on the CGC census, and it was also oddly and luckily enough to be the first comic book I ever got as a kid. I actually keep that original copy I got from 1985 in the back of that slab's bag as a reader.

That's a great collectible. I've yet to read that issue, but I know it's beloved.

Speaking of Iron Man, I'm going to be picking up the new #1 tomorrow. Hoping I'll have a Marvel book I can follow monthly.

[Leo656]

Ah man, that one's great. I don't have the actual issue but I have the story in a few different reprint collections. What a gem.

I'm going over the Alan Moore/Grant Morrison article bit by bit, and the part where Morrison said Watchmen wasn't very good almost had me chip a tooth. This from the guy who gave us "Final Crisis".

And I actually love Final Crisis. But I'm like one of five people. And at least on the occasions where Alan Moore decides to go full "David Lynch" his babbling still makes sense without a road map and a tour guide. Can't say that about Morrison. What a rube.

[Voltron]

Do you think Bats killed Joker at the end?

[Leo656]

No. For the very simple reason that the script is included in most of the more recent versions of the story and the script doesn't say anything about that, nor even hints at that in the slightest. It spends 87 minutes on describing the ripples in the puddles on the ground, yet gives absolutely no descriptive evidence that that is what the final panels were meant to convey.

It was merely an unfortunately ambiguous choice by the artist, and nothing more than that. People lean into that theory because they like to have fun with it, but it goes very much against the way Alan Moore writes. That isn't the kind of thing he would leave ambiguous. If nothing else, the script would hint towards that conclusion, but it simply does not. When Moore wants you to infer a conclusion he leads you there directly while stopping short of spelling it out in bold, and the rest is up to you as the reader to figure out but it's still all rather clear what his point was. That's true of everything he's done from "Watchmen" to "Lost Girls"; he's not just vague and mysterious for Vague and Mysterious's Sake. He would have at least put it in the script so the penciller would know that was the intent of the scene, with directions to "keep it vague, but here's what happens." Yet it's not in there.

Like "Black April O'Neil", it was just an unfortunately vague depiction by the penciller which certain people read way too much into and others now mistakenly latch onto it as fact despite no firm supportive evidence.

Not to mention, every single thing in that story is treated as "Hard Canon" MOST of the time in the mainstream DC Universe, in which the Joker is still alive. it would be ridiculous for Every Single Thing about the story to be in-canon, and then one single panel of it be an "ElseWorlds" thing because "He totally killed Joker, you guys!" Sure, except a month later in the monthly books they talk about him crippling Barbara. Which means that this story - ALL of it - happened in the mainstream DCU and is canon.

It's a theory that sounds intriguing for a second when someone floats it to you when you're passing the bong around or hanging out at Denny's at 2am or whatever, and then turns entirely silly and completely falls about if you think about it for more than five seconds.

If people WANT to think that's what happened, well... that's their prerogative. But it absolutely isn't what happened.

[AquaParade]

I believe it is meant to be ambiguous. It's a weird ending and there is so much focus on death and the fact that one of them will end up killing each other throughout the story and then we get to Batman telling Joker this could be their very last chance, before Joker refutes and tells the (killing?) joke. There is also some visuals and symbolism that could point towards this if you want to look at it that way.
The constant focus on Batman and Joker being locked on this course where one of them will eventually kill the other seems sort of out place and overly focused on if there is indeed no payoff to that. So, I do think it is meant to he ambiguous. I wouldn't put it past Moore to tiptoe around it in the script.
I mean, to each their own though.

[Leo656]

I think merely acknowledging the fact that they are indeed locked in a death-struggle with no way out was poignant enough and got the point across without there actually needing to be a "payoff".

Not everything needs an answer. Sometimes it's enough that one acknowledges the fact that there is indeed a question. In this story's case, "Why are we doing this when we know it can only end One Way?" And neither one of them has an answer, they can only be Who They Are because in the end it's all they know how to do. And therein lies the tragedy.

You don't actually need to show someone's neck getting snapped to get that point across.

Moore himself has said that the ultimate point the story was trying to make was very simply that both Batman and The Joker are a similar brand of "crazy", and are each defined by Death and Tragedy and simply cope in different but equally-unhealthy ways. It was never about a "payoff", it was merely a character study of two people who hate each other, despite not even knowing anything about each other, and who have more in common than not but can never even truly acknowledge that connection, that same-ness, because whether by choice or by destiny they're forever locked in opposition, the Irresistable Force and the Immovable Object. It wasn't "building" to anything; the entire story is merely a rumination on that theme of how alike the two of them really are, once you get past the surface of things. And the final scene, I think, illustrates that quite well.

Moore has said often that one of his biggest peeves with the story, is that people over-think it and project meaning onto it that goes far away from anything he intended to be read into it. In saying that HE doesn't think it's even very good, he talks vaguely about people projecting their own ideas onto it and making it out to be a much bigger and grander tale than what he actually put on paper. I have to believe that "Batman killed the Joker" is probably what he means, more than any other singular thing else about it. I can't imagine it sits well to have a ton of people repeatedly and forcefully insist upon something you know for a fact you didn't put into the material. Speculation is one thing but many people insist this theory to be factual, and IF that wasn't Moore's intent - and again, I highly doubt that it ever was - then it HAS to be very annoying by now.

But yeah, this was one of those "What the story is About is much more important than what happens IN the story" situations, as per Moore himself. And it's not about building to a final confrontation, it's merely a character study of two similarly-broken people who happen to be on a collision course, and a rumination on the futility of it all. Again, I defer to authorial intent.

I think "...And then he f*cking killed him" kind of cheapens a lot of what the story was meant to be about after all of that, honestly. I don't know. You have to kind of insist that that's what happened and then work backwards in order for any of that theory to work. It's not in any way contradictory but nonetheless very forced. It always came off as very "What if we're in the Matrix right now?" kind of stuff, to me, to be blunt.

People can think whatever they want, I'm just saying, evidence strongly suggest that the ending isn't meant to be read that way.

[AquaParade]

Bolland himself who drew the thing plays up the ambiguous nature of it all the time. Moore might have written the thing but Bolland deserves as much a say if not more than anyone else and he loves to get fans talking about it.

I agree you don't need to "show" anyone's neck getting snapped, which they don't. Ambiguous, not explicit. Like the ending of Inception. It is meant to spur discussion. Did Batman kill Joker? Why did the laughing suddenly cut out in the next panel? Is Batman finally cracking like the Joker did? Or whatever else you can come up with.