The Dark Knight I guess joker just applies make-up after all

[The Shape]

This argument is getting redundant.

You can choose to ignore what is said to be canon in the DC Universe, but it doesn't change the fact that more often than not, the Joker has bleached white skin, and he was made that way by a fall into a chemical bath. Sure, there are other ways to interpret that character, as we're seeing in TDK, and if it doesn't explicitly say that he has white skin in a certain comic you're reading, you can form your own conclusions if you'd life. But this doesn't change the fact that the Joker DOES have white skin, which is permanent.

But why choose to ignore something that's true? By ignoring it, you're pretending that an intricate part of the character's history does not exist. It's almost like watching Batman 1989, and halfway through the movie, you decide you didn't like th acid bath origin and would rather his origin be more mysterious. Why? Sure, maybe Bob Kane didn't decide that the Joker was perma-white when he and Bill Finger first created him. However, Kane was a consultant on B'89 and he loved what they did with the Joker and allowed it.

 

[Saint]

No, no, no, no... (beats head off desk) - there is NO DEFINITIVE BATMAN. BATMAN DOESN'T EXIST. Put it this way - there is a definitive George Bush, the living, breathing real person in the White House, about which we have definite facts that cannot be altered, but if he had never been born, and I wrote a story about a character called 'George Bush' that became president, that character could never be considered 'definitive' because every single human being that was aware of him could imagine an infinite variety of scenarios or characteristics about him that would render a 'definite' version impossible,as with all fictional characters.

Everyone, including the 'creators' are fully entitled to say 'bugger off' to any other interpretation, because all are subjective and all are equally valid.

This is simply not a view held by the majority of the fiction-reading public. There are canon (which is to say, definitive or "real") versions of characters, and there are a number of reasons why this is so. Some that come to mind are:

-Publication rights. No fan fiction can be as valid as the "real" work, simply because it cannot be published and is forever doomed to be scribbles on the internet that nobody cares about. Odd as it may seem, there is a level of validity that comes simply through being "official."

-Ownership. It is generally agreed that the person who owns the property defines it. When ownership changes (such as in Transformers comics) sometimes the different ownerships are split into different canons.

-Persistence. The "anything goes" mentality is not popular, because the audience wants persistence. They want a single, clearly defined work. This is, inevitably, the official, creator owned version, because it is the only one with the legal rights to be produced in such a way that it reaches a significant audience.

The reasons behind "canon" are certainly vague, and above is only my speculation, it does exist, for whatever reason.

 

[nickyg641]

What truths, exactly? You mean concepts that are widely accepted? My interpretation of a character can be influenced by the presentation of that character's persona, but my interpretation of a character can never be influenced by genetic ideas that are presented as "truths" by DC.

If I don't want my Joker to have an origin, then I can rightfully ignore the chemical bath origin, regardless of "DC CANON"...


Damn, and what does it say in your sig?

"When in doubt, realize that Saint is always right."

Based on what you just wrote, I find that hard to imagine...


Oh, for the life of me...

My understanding of, say, Batman's persona can be influenced. And through that influence, through my understanding of that aspect of the character, more writers will utilize it. That's how characters are evolved. They aren't evolved around "truths"; they are evolved around what WE, AS READERS, feel is "within the character's persona".

Producing "genetic facts" about a character is something else entirely...

But, you see, the majority of readers, except you, find the chemical bath "within the character's persona". It's not as if all are pleading for the retcon of this nasty little detail, and DC are sitting up in their castle and shaking their heads.

No, it's really just you. So, being that the majority of readers feel that the chemical bath is "within the character's persona", the rest is really just denial. You can chose to ignore it, as you said, just as I can chose to ignore the Waynes' murder, hell, I could decide that I don't like Two-Face, and decide to believe that he never eixisted in the Batman Universe. It's our perogative as readers. But that would still be denial.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

This argument is getting redundant.

You can choose to ignore what is said to be canon in the DC Universe, but it doesn't change the fact that more often than not, the Joker has bleached white skin, and he was made that way by a fall into a chemical bath. Sure, there are other ways to interpret that character, as we're seeing in TDK, and if it doesn't explicitly say that he has white skin in a certain comic you're reading, you can form your own conclusions if you'd life. But this doesn't change the fact that the Joker DOES have white skin, which is permanent.

But why choose to ignore something that's true? By ignoring it, you're pretending that an intricate part of the character's history does not exist. It's almost like watching Batman 1989, and halfway through the movie, you decide you didn't like th acid bath origin and would rather his origin be more mysterious. Why? Sure, maybe Bob Kane didn't decide that the Joker was perma-white when he and Bill Finger first created him. However, Kane was a consultant on B'89 and he loved what they did with the Joker and allowed it.

You're right about one thing, and one thing only, that this argument is redundant. But not for the reasons you posit. Read back over the last two pages and you'll see why.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this.

1)The Joker is NOT REAL. There are NO TRUTHS ABOUT HIM. HE IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER, AND AS SUCH, IF YOU, I OR ANYONE ELSE IMAGINE HIM TO HAVE WHITE, BLUE OR GOLD SKIN, PERMANENT OR OTHERWISE, ALL THOSE INTERPRETATIONS ARE EQUALLY VALID. BECAUSE AS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER, THERE IS NO WAY TO ABSOLUTELY, EMPIRICALLY PROVE AN INTERPRETATION OF HIM. If he was real, then we could go up to him and see beyond any shadow of a doubt what his real skin colour was. But he's not. HE EXISTS ONLY IN IMAGINATION AND WORKS OF IMAGINATION. Okay?

2) THIS APPLIES TO THE AUTHOR, OR CREATOR, BE IT BOB KANE, CHARLES DICKENS OR STANLEY KUBRICK JUST AS MUCH AS IT APPLIES TO THOSE THAT READ OR WATCH THEIR WORK. I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, ALL INTERPRETATIONS ARE VALID, BECAUSE THIS IS FICTION WE ARE DEALING WITH. FICTION - AS IN, NOT REAL. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF BOB KANE WROTE A 15,000 PAGE TOME THAT DETAILED THE EXACT ORIGIN OF THE JOKER IN MINUTE DETAIL, AS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER I, YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE (INCLUDING BOB KANE) CAN CHANGE THAT.

 

[Anita18]

-Publication rights. No fan fiction can be as valid as the "real" work, simply because it cannot be published and is forever doomed to be scribbles on the internet that nobody cares about. Odd as it may seem, there is a level of validity that comes simply through being "official."

That kinda did occur to me recently. All the Batman comics that are written now ARE fan fiction in a way, because the original creators Bob Kane and Bill Finger are dead.

DC Comics picks and chooses what it wants to be canon, because they own the rights to Batman. That's all. I don't think TKJ was originally supposed to be canon re: the shooting of Barbara Gordon, but they decided it would stay. DKR is one of the most renowned graphic novels ever, but it is not canon. Why? Not because it's crap, but because DC simply decided it wouldn't be.

I also think the times are changing when it comes to publishing, thanks to the Internet. Of course, you won't be able to make any money off of a character whose rights you don't own, but it's not like people HAVE to go to a publisher to get their stuff out into the public.

 

[Matchbox]

That kinda did occur to me recently. All the Batman comics that are written now ARE fan fiction in a way, because the original creators Bob Kane and Bill Finger are dead.

DC Comics picks and chooses what it wants to be canon, because they own the rights to Batman. That's all. I don't think TKJ was originally supposed to be canon re: the shooting of Barbara Gordon, but they decided it would stay. DKR is one of the most renowned graphic novels ever, but it is not canon. Why? Not because it's crap, but because DC simply decided it wouldn't be.

I also think the times are changing when it comes to publishing, thanks to the Internet. Of course, you won't be able to make any money off of a character whose rights you don't own, but it's not like people HAVE to go to a publisher to get their stuff out into the public.

I agree with that. Good post.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

But, you see, the majority of readers, except you, find the chemical bath "within the character's persona". It's not as if all are pleading for the retcon of this nasty little detail, and DC are sitting up in their castle and shaking their heads.

No, it's really just you. So, being that the majority of readers feel that the chemical bath is "within the character's persona", the rest is really just denial. You can chose to ignore it, as you said, just as I can chose to ignore the Waynes' murder, hell, I could decide that I don't like Two-Face, and decide to believe that he never eixisted in the Batman Universe. It's our perogative as readers. But that would still be denial.

The chemical bath origin has nothing to do with the Joker's persona. That isn't evolving the character's persona -- it's a genetic origin for the character, which ties in with everything I have said.

If George Lucas died, and then someone bought the right and then said that Darth Vader didn't really need a life-support suit, and that he just wore it to look scary, and then he labeled that idea with the all-encompassing "canon" sticker -- I still wouldn't go along with it.

That is my argument in a nut-shell.

 

[The Shape]

You're right about one thing, and one thing only, that this argument is redundant. But not for the reasons you posit. Read back over the last two pages and you'll see why.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this.

1)The Joker is NOT REAL. There are NO TRUTHS ABOUT HIM. HE IS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER, AND AS SUCH, IF YOU, I OR ANYONE ELSE IMAGINE HIM TO HAVE WHITE, BLUE OR GOLD SKIN, PERMANENT OR OTHERWISE, ALL THOSE INTERPRETATIONS ARE EQUALLY VALID. BECAUSE AS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER, THERE IS NO WAY TO ABSOLUTELY, EMPIRICALLY PROVE AN INTERPRETATION OF HIM. If he was real, then we could go up to him and see beyond any shadow of a doubt what his real skin colour was. But he's not. HE EXISTS ONLY IN IMAGINATION AND WORKS OF IMAGINATION. Okay?

2) THIS APPLIES TO THE AUTHOR, OR CREATOR, BE IT BOB KANE, CHARLES DICKENS OR STANLEY KUBRICK JUST AS MUCH AS IT APPLIES TO THOSE THAT READ OR WATCH THEIR WORK. I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, ALL INTERPRETATIONS ARE VALID, BECAUSE THIS IS FICTION WE ARE DEALING WITH. FICTION - AS IN, NOT REAL. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF BOB KANE WROTE A 15,000 PAGE TOME THAT DETAILED THE EXACT ORIGIN OF THE JOKER IN MINUTE DETAIL, AS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER I, YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE (INCLUDING BOB KANE) CAN CHANGE THAT.

I'm sorry, but The Joker IS real. Once he is put on paper, or immortalized on film, he becomes real. The Joker is not just an idea. We can't just discuss him and make him out to be whatever I want, because there are 40 years worth of comics that tell us otherwise. You say the Joker can have any kind of skin color because he is fictional, but this isn't true. Unless he is drawn with blue or gold skin, he has WHITE SKIN. In order to change this fact, you'd have have to somehow burn all of the comics in which the Joker exists and looks like this.

I see what you're trying to say, he it's not true. Yes, he is a fictional character. He is not a living, breathing human being. There are things that can be changed about him, and he can be interpreted in many different ways. However, there are generally things about him that are set in stone. Going by your logic, since the Joker has no truths, then he doesn't have a name, does he? We could just choose to ignore that and call him "Crazy Clown Dood", but you're not arguing that we do that, are you? According to the DC canon, the Joker has white skin, green hair, wears purple, and is believe to have become this way after taking a fall into a chemical bath. Sure, in your crazy mind, you can make the Joker whatever YOU want him to be, but this doesn't change the facts about him that have been put on paper for decades now. The same goes for Batman. He doesn't even have to be called "Batman" or wear a bat-like costume if YOU don't want him to, but you would only be lying to yourself and ignoring the truth.

 

[The Shape]

One more thing. Going by some of your opinions, we could take ANY fictional character and change them into whatever we want them to be. How does that make any sense? Yes, they are fictional, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore what is put before us. We can't pretend that Harry Potter is a grown woman with a lightening scar on her ass, just because those novels are fictional. You have to respect what is written on the pages of those books, just like you have to understand there are certain aspects of the Joker that cannot be ignored.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

This is simply not a view held by the majority of the fiction-reading public. There are canon (which is to say, definitive or "real") versions of characters, and there are a number of reasons why this is so. Some that come to mind are:

-Publication rights. No fan fiction can be as valid as the "real" work, simply because it cannot be published and is forever doomed to be scribbles on the internet that nobody cares about. Odd as it may seem, there is a level of validity that comes simply through being "official."

-Ownership. It is generally agreed that the person who owns the property defines it. When ownership changes (such as in Transformers comics) sometimes the different ownerships are split into different canons.

-Persistence. The "anything goes" mentality is not popular, because the audience wants persistence. They want a single, clearly defined work. This is, inevitably, the official, creator owned version, because it is the only one with the legal rights to be produced in such a way that it reaches a significant audience.

The reasons behind "canon" are certainly vague, and above is only my speculation, it does exist, for whatever reason.

Go read my earlier post about copyright. Your argument about 'ownership' or 'publication rights' have nothing to do with what I'm saying. Copyright laws and intellectual property are legal matters that are concerned with practicality, they safeguard creative individuals and companies, because otherwise they would be ripped off. The discussion here is about the very separate issue of aesthetics - the infinite nature of interpretation. Mention of 'ownership' or copyright is as out of place here as it would be in a music review, or in an essay describing the narrative of Dubliners. My whole point is that because something is fictitious, any interpretation of it is as valid as the original. That does not merely include 'fan-fiction' but every single thought a person might have about something fictitious, and by the way, as far as I'm aware, the world of thought and imagination is still uncontrolled by law.

As for the 'persistence' argument, if it is the case that what you define as 'canon' or the 'definitive' text is such, and I quote, because 'it is the only one with the legal rights to be produced in such a way that it reaches a significant audience' then this is simply because of the reality and practicality of real life commerce and production, not because, as I rightly state, that that version is in any way more 'valid' than any other. Moreover, suggesting that the 'audience' (however you define that) may want a singular interpretation still doesn't effect anything at all. An infinite amount of other interpretations can, and inevitably will, always occur.

'Canons' have been perpetrated by institutions, business, academics for a variety of reasons. But ultimately, they do not exist. If the 'majority of fiction reading public' don't know this, it doesn't make it untrue.

Trust me, I read English at Oxford.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

One more thing. Going by some of your opinions, we could take ANY fictional character and change them into whatever we want them to be. How does that make any sense? Yes, they are fictional, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore what is put before us. We can't pretend that Harry Potter is a grown woman with a lightening scar on her ass, just because those novels are fictional. You have to respect what is written on the pages of those books, just like you have to understand there are certain aspects of the Joker that cannot be ignored.

Yes, that's the whole point. That's my argument. It's a very old piece of critical theory, it's been doing the rounds since the fifties. Actually, writers from Ovid, to Sterne, to Melville to Joyce touched on it. You don't have to respect anything that is fictional. Do you find that freedom scary?

 

[Sunburned Hand]

I'm sorry, but The Joker IS real. Once he is put on paper, or immortalized on film, he becomes real. The Joker is not just an idea.

 

[The Joker]

You can choose to ignore what is said to be canon in the DC Universe, but it doesn't change the fact that more often than not, the Joker has bleached white skin, and he was made that way by a fall into a chemical bath.

Not more often than not, it's always been that way. There is no origin for The Joker that DC have done that doesn't feature the chemical bath.

 

[Saint]

What truths, exactly? You mean concepts that are widely accepted?

Concepts that are canon. Wide acceptance only matters so far as the owners allow it to. The general public widely accepts things about Batman that any fanboy will say are not "true" because they are not canon. They are not canon because the owners have decided that, in these instances, wide acceptance is irrelevant. Canon is considered more valid for reasons I mentioned in my previous post to Sunburned Hand.

My interpretation of a character can be influenced by the presentation of that character's persona, but my interpretation of a character can never be influenced by genetic ideas that are presented as "truths" by DC. If I don't want my Joker to have an origin, then I can rightfully ignore the chemical bath origin, regardless of "DC CANON"...

Correct, but canon still remains the more valid version. Again, I outlined some reasons for this in my response to Sunburned Hand. You may disagree, but the principle of canon remains, regardless.

My understanding of, say, Batman's persona can be influenced. And through that influence, through my understanding of that aspect of the character, more writers will utilize it. That's how characters are evolved. They aren't evolved around "truths"; they are evolved around what WE, AS READERS, feel is "within the character's persona".

This is only true so far as the owner decides reader opinion should affect how the character is written.

Consider it this way: there are fact's about DC's character. There is a Joker in your head that is different, certainly, but that is not the same character. That is Mr. Superhero's Joker, not DC's Joker. You can argue that both are "true," since they are only ideas, and that has merit, but only to a point. DC's version will always be deemed "more true" simply by virtue of being official.

If you say "The Joker doesn't have bleached skin," well, that's going to perceived as incorrect, and rightfully so--because the official version says different, and the official version will always be regarded as being true, where yours will always be perceived as being "fake." True and fake are not the most accurate terms (which is why we call it "canon" and "non-canon" instead) but that is the reality.

I don't like Leslie Thompkins being turned into a psycho, so I'd like to believe she isn't, but my version doesn't matter unless somebody at DC decides to let fan reaction influence continuity. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Regardless, my preferred version of Thompkins will always be irrelevant, simply because it is not official.

 

[nickyg641]

The chemical bath origin has nothing to do with the Joker's persona. That isn't evolving the character's persona -- it's a genetic origin for the character, which ties in with everything I have said.

If George Lucas died, and then someone bought the right and then said that Darth Vader didn't really need a life-support suit, and that he just wore it to look scary, and then he labeled that idea with the all-encompassing "canon" sticker -- I still wouldn't go along with it.

That is my argument in a nut-shell.

I see what you're saying. I do. But, simply because it came after the initial creation of a character, doesn't mean it's invalid. The way you put it, really, what it comes down to, is whether or not you like it. It seems to me as if you're using the argument of whether or not it was originally intended to back up the fact that there is something you simply don't like.

Which isn't wrong, you can dislike the chemical bath origin. You can pretend that it was never commited to paper, but, the fact is, it was, sixty years ago, and has been the accepted origin ever since. It's not just some bigwigs at DC who just like the sound of it, no, it's everybody. The general readership likes it, DC likes it, clearly the writers like it, therefore, it's generally accepted to be true.

Besides, I don't know what exactly is so demystifying about the Joker's origin. Does it clear up some things that I think I would like to be left a bit more mysterious? Yeah, probably. But does it completely destroy any mystery the characrer may have had? No.

A backstory,that's different. That's when you start learning about what kind of person the Joker was before his transformation, that's what should be left a mystery. The chemical bath origin itself, in its most basic, original form, was merely explaining how the Joker's outward appearance came to be. It didn't reveal his identity, it didn't show you what he looked like, you didn't even know what kind of person he was. Just his outward appearance.

And, personally, I kind of like knowing this little bit about the Joker. Because it just opens the door to so many more questions. Knowing this little bit makes you want to know more, but you can't, because all evidence of his previous life was erased with that chemical bath. And knowing that makes him all the more tantalizing.

Not saying that I don't like the idea of the Joker just showin up and being permawhite. That's what I advocated to be the situation for TDK. The Joker show up, be permawhite, and have the characters be baffled as to why. But drop little hints here and there, something alluding to an accident of some sort, but never quite elaborating as to how he was pulled into that situation or why; little things that prime the imagination, basic blocks upon which your imagination can build the rest.

That's how I like it, and that's what I like about the vagueness of the original 1951 origin.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

Not more often than not, it's always been that way. There is no origin for The Joker that DC have done that doesn't feature the chemical bath.

Apart from the millions I just thought of right now, and the millions that you could think of right now. All of which are just as definitive as each other.

 

[The Joker]

Apart from the millions I just thought of right now, and the millions that you could think of right now. All of which are just as definitive as each other.

Unless DC prints them, they ain't definitive. They own The Joker. He's their character. What they say about him goes, whether we like it or not.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

I see what you're saying. I do. But, simply because it came after the initial creation of a character, doesn't mean it's invalid. The way you put it, really, what it comes down to, is whether or not you like it. It seems to me as if you're using the argument of whether or not it was originally intended to back up the fact that there is something you simply don't like.

Which isn't wrong, you can dislike the chemical bath origin. You can pretend that it was never commited to paper, but, the fact is, it was, sixty years ago, and has been the accepted origin ever since. It's not just some bigwigs at DC who just like the sound of it, no, it's everybody. The general readership likes it, DC likes it, clearly the writers like it, therefore, it's generally accepted to be true.

Besides, I don't know what exactly is so demystifying about the Joker's origin. Does it clear up some things that I think I would like to be left a bit more mysterious? Yeah, probably. But does it completely destroy any mystery the characrer may have had? No.

A backstory,that's different. That's when you start learning about what kind of person the Joker was before his transformation, that's what should be left a mystery. The chemical bath origin itself, in its most basic, original form, was merely explaining how the Joker's outward appearance came to be. It didn't reveal his identity, it didn't show you what he looked like, you didn't even know what kind of person he was. Just his outward appearance.

And, personally, I kind of like knowing this little bit about the Joker. Because it just opens the door to so many more questions. Knowing this little bit makes you want to know more, but you can't, because all evidence of his previous life was erased with that chemical bath. And knowing that makes him all the more tantalizing.

Not saying that I don't like the idea of the Joker just showin up and being permawhite. That's what I advocated to be the situation for TDK. The Joker show up, be permawhite, and have the characters be baffled as to why. But drop little hints here and there, something alluding to an accident of some sort, but never quite elaborating as to how he was pulled into that situation or why; little things that prime the imagination, basic blocks upon which your imagination can build the rest.

That's how I like it, and that's what I like about the vagueness of the original 1951 origin.

That's fine, dude. I can totally understand why other people might prefer the Joker's chemical bath origin story. If people like that particular origin story -- if people like the idea of the Joker even having an origin story -- let them fire away.

I mean, of coarse, I totally dislike the chemical bath origin story; that's why I choose to totally disregard it. In my mind, that isn't how the Joker was formed. Hell, I don't even have a concept of how the Joker was formed -- he's just there, and he's f*****g nuts. The DC executives aren't going to change my mind, nor am I going to be forced to believe in something that a someone, other than the creators of the character, conjured up. Sure, if Bob Kane and Bill Finger presented us with the origin story, then, in my mind, there would be no other way around it. That would be the Joker origin story, because they made the character... they know everything about the character... what they say is the truth. Hence, my George Lucas example, which I keep referring to.

I mean, there's nothing wrong with the chemical bath origin per se, but I much prefer the original concept of the character; the concept where the Joker has no origin. No DC publication is going to change that, for me. It might work for you; it doesn't work for me. At the end of the day, I feel that I am well within my rights to determine the formation of the character's that I am reading about. That's what art is, IMO: a means to interpretation. For example, how about the "Scream" painting? What is that person screaming at? Why are they afraid? If the actual designer of the painting came out and provided us with an answer, then that would be the end of that. However, if someone else comes out and provides us with an answer, then how is their interpretation any more valid than ours, regardless of their job title?

 

[Sunburned Hand]

Correct, but canon still remains the more valid version. You may disagree, but the principle of canon remains, regardless.

Canon is not more 'valid' it is simply more accepted, which is a different thing entirely.

Consider it this way: there are fact's about DC's character. There is a Joker in your head that is different, certainly, but that is not the same character. That is Mr. Superhero's Joker, not DC's Joker. You can argue that both are "true," since they are only ideas, and that has merit, but only to a point. DC's version will always be deemed "more true" simply by virtue of being official.

No, there are no 'facts.' But yes, there are different Jokers in all our heads - this is what is commonly known as an 'interpretation.' And yes these are all different. And yes, the DC version (whatever that is) will usually be deemed 'more true' by virtue of it being 'official,' but that doesn't mean it is at all. All are valid. My original point still stands.

I don't like Leslie Thompkins being turned into a psycho, so I'd like to believe she isn't, but my version doesn't matter unless somebody at DC decides to let fan reaction influence continuity. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Regardless, my preferred version of Thompkins will always be irrelevant, simply because it is not official.

What a horrible and pessimistic world you describe, where free thought and interpretation is 'irrelevant' and 'doesn't matter.' I'm glad that I can think for myself, and believe in the autonomy of the individual mind.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

Unless DC prints them, they ain't definitive. They own The Joker. He's their character. What they say about him goes, whether we like it or not.

Go back and read post 19081 to see why your use of the word 'definitive' is wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[The Shape]

Apart from the millions I just thought of right now, and the millions that you could think of right now. All of which are just as definitive as each other.

We get it. You read English at Oxford. You have this theory that a fictional character can be whatever we imagine, and I guess this is true for people like you. You want to imagine the Joker as something that he's not, go right ahead.

But by this logic, why would you be interested in reading/watching anything fictional if you're just going to have all of your own crazy ideas about it? Why read a book when, techically, according to you, the story of that book doesn't exist, and you can just ignore what you just read?

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Concepts that are canon. Wide acceptance only matters so far as the owners allow it to. The general public widely accepts things about Batman that any fanboy will say are not "true" because they are not canon. They are not canon because the owners have decided that, in these instances, wide acceptance is irrelevant. Canon is considered more valid for reasons I mentioned in my previous post to Sunburned Hand.


Correct, but canon still remains the more valid version. Again, I outlined some reasons for this in my response to Sunburned Hand. You may disagree, but the principle of canon remains, regardless.



This is only true so far as the owner decides reader opinion should affect how the character is written.

Consider it this way: there are fact's about DC's character. There is a Joker in your head that is different, certainly, but that is not the same character. That is Mr. Superhero's Joker, not DC's Joker. You can argue that both are "true," since they are only ideas, and that has merit, but only to a point. DC's version will always be deemed "more true" simply by virtue of being official.

If you say "The Joker doesn't have bleached skin," well, that's going to perceived as incorrect, and rightfully so--because the official version says different, and the official version will always be regarded as being true, where yours will always be perceived as being "fake." True and fake are not the most accurate terms (which is why we call it "canon" and "non-canon" instead) but that is the reality.

I don't like Leslie Thompkins being turned into a psycho, so I'd like to believe she isn't, but my version doesn't matter unless somebody at DC decides to let fan reaction influence continuity. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Regardless, my preferred version of Thompkins will always be irrelevant, simply because it is not official.

Who determines what the person in the painting is afraid of, other than the actual creator of the painting? If someone from a painting organization comes out, and puts forward their analysis on what the person in the painting is screaming at, then how is their interpretation any more valid than my own? It doesn't matter whether this hypothetical person's analysis is presented as a "truth" by some painting company, due to the analysis being "logical", because it is what it is: an interpretation, just as I can interpret what the person in the painting is screaming at...

 

[The Shape]

Who determines what the person in the painting is afraid of, other than the actual creator of the painting? If someone from a painting organization comes out, and puts forward their analysis on what the person in the painting is screaming at, then how is their interpretation any more valid than my own? It doesn't matter whether this hypothetical person's analysis is presented as a "truth" by some painting company, due to the analysis being "logical", because it is what it is: an interpretation, just as I can interpret what the person in the painting is screaming at...

Paintings are not that same as decades worth of comics. We know nothing about this person in the painting, so it's completely subjective. With the Joker, however, there are WORDS and STORIES and ART that have explicity said that the Joker's skin in white, and that this happened due to a fall into a chemical bath.

Now, I'm not saying I like that origin. Hell, I prefer TDK's Joker now. However, in the comics, there are truths about the Joker. There are facts, and although you may want to ignore them and form your own theories, it doesn't change that fact that they exist.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

Paintings are not that same as decades worth of comics. We know nothing about this person in the painting, so it's completely subjective. With the Joker, however, there are WORDS and STORIES and ART that have explicity said that the Joker's skin in white, and that this happened due to a fall into a chemical bath.

Now, I'm not saying I like that origin. Hell, I prefer TDK's Joker now. However, in the comics, there are truths about the Joker. There are facts, and although you may want to ignore them and form your own theories, it doesn't change that fact that they exist.

No, the creators of the Joker said that his skin is perma-white, but they never commented on why his skin is perma-white. That ties into the painting above.

The artist shows us that the person in the painting is afraid, but they aren't showing us what the person is afraid of...

 

[Sunburned Hand]

We get it. You read English at Oxford. You have this theory that a fictional character can be whatever we imagine, and I guess this is true for people like you. You want to imagine the Joker as something that he's not, go right ahead.

But by this logic, why would you be interested in reading/watching anything fictional if you're just going to have all of your own crazy ideas about it? Why read a book when, techically, according to you, the story of that book doesn't exist, and you can just ignore what you just read?

Because the possibilities of interpretation are therefore endless, and a text is almost inexhaustible in its potential. I can ignore it, or obsess over it, I can mull over a single page or character, or I can imagine a million different outcomes. The story exists (in that it is there to be read) and so I'll read it. Whilst I'm reading it I focus on the interpretation of the writer - their handling of narrative, characterisation, their skills with langauge, the relation of the work to its context yadda yadda yadda. Afterwards I will form my own interpretation. Sometimes this might square with what might well have been the author's, sometimes it doesn't. Both are fine. I am not told how, or what to think.

My interpretation of the Joker, I imagine, is 99.9% similar to most other people's. Just that I don't claim that my version is any better, or more definitive than the other. Because it's not. I understand that all are equally valid, and I think we should all celebrate that fact. It makes life worth living that we can hold opinions and think freely.