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

[The Shape]

No, the creators of the Joker said that his skin was white, but they never commented on why his skin is 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...

This is true. However, this is one painting. The Joker's original appearances are not his only ones, and his creators are not even remotely the only people who have worked on the character. The Joker's original appearances do not define him, but he his defined by a mythos that spans generations.

This painting is not necessarily a story, though it can be interpreted as one. But there are no sequels, or continuations to it, nor is there an explanation behind it. However, the Joker has PLENTY of stories to read. He has been explained, and he exists within a certain comic universe.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

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.

Look, there are no truths - this is fiction. The only way an origin (be it an acid bath or whatever) in these comics could be 'true' would be if there was actually a person in real life whose experience directly and explicitly influenced and was then exactly replicated in the comic. This would then be classed as 'Non-Fiction,' or 'Biography' or as children are otherwise first taught about it in school to make it easier for them to understand, 'truth' or 'fact.'

The Joker origin that you prefer is as valid as anyone other. NO SINGLE ONE HAS PRECEDENCE, BECAUSE THIS IS FICTION. So it's great that the DC interpretation exists. Just like it's great that mine exits, and yours.

Also, I'm sorry if I'm being patronising or anything.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

This is true. However, this is one painting. The Joker's original appearances are not his only ones, and his creators are not even remotely the only people who have worked on the character. The Joker's original appearances do not define him, but he his defined by a mythos that spans generations.

This painting is not necessarily a story, though it can be interpreted as one. But there are no sequels, or continuations to it, nor is there an explanation behind it. However, the Joker has PLENTY of stories to read. He has been explained, and he exists within a certain comic universe.

It doesn't matter how long the Joker has existed, or how many stories there have been written about him, because the creation of the character is incredibly similar to the Scream painting in terms of narrative and how it affects my point of view.

Only the artist of the Scream painting can reveal what the person in the painting is screaming at. In the same vein: only the artists of the Joker (Bob Kane and Bill Finger) can reveal HOW the Joker was created. But, just like the Scream picture, that aspect of the art-work is intentionally left ambiguous -- it is left up to the reader to decide, because that is what makes art so special. So, we move on to my next point. People claim that the chemical bath origin is definitive because it has been published by DC, yet the chemical bath origin is just an interpretation, much like the fact that I could interpret the formation of the Joker's permanently bleached skin. By the same token: people can try to figure out what the person in the painting is screaming at; they could have that analysis published; but why should that affect my interpretation? Why should some interpretation made by someone other than the creators of the Joker affect my interpretation, because they are doing exactly the same thing that I am doing: interpreting how the Joker was formed.

That is what art is all about -- that is why the Scream painting is so popular; it represents the entire nature of art, and how we, as spectators, can interpret what we see. The Scream painting illustrates just how many interpretations can co-exist, but all are equally as valid.

 

[Saint]

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.

Those realities (and the effects of the law, as I mentioned) are what make the official version more valid. Perhaps valid isn't the word I should be using, but in any case there is a level of "truth" afforded to canonical versions. You're right, this is mainly because of the practicality and reality of commerce and production (which was one of my points), but I would also argue it is simply a reality of fiction. The story that is told is, in my opinion, more "real" than the story that is heard or the story that is preferred by the person listening because the latter doesn't exist without the former. Moreover, I would question at what point the other interpretation can still be described as mere "interpretation" instead of something else entirely.

I would say the line between and interpretation and a new character is drawn at continuity. For example, Geoff Johns' interpretation of Batman is different than Grant Morrison's, but both can be said to not contradict each other to the point that they must be called different characters, or that they must be said to exist in different continuities. Your example of the Gold-skinned Joker crosses the line in that it would require an alternate continuity, and I question where that can be still be called an "interpretation." It seems more accurate to call it a new character.

'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.

You're right, it is true that canon only has merit because we allow it to, because we've decided--for our own reasons--that we prefer to invest ourselves in it, rather than in [email protected]'s fan fiction. But you also say it doesn't exist, which isn't accurate: it exists because we've allowed it to.

 

[Saint]

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...

I understand what you mean. In the painting, we don't know what the figure is screaming at, and in Kane's original work, we don't know what made the Joker white. However, if the artist of "The Scream" sold the rights of that concept to a group that produced a series of works that revealed the character is screaming at a giant potato, that would become the truth of it.

I know your immediate thought is "Why the hell should that be?" Well, remember how you said only the creator has the absolute authority to make these decisions definitive? Well, the creator just signed that right over. I don't mean this in a legal, copyright law way. What I mean is that the creator has volunteered that absolute authority to someone else. He's given it to them.

Bob Kane did this before he ever conceived of Batman or the Joker. He knew that once these characters were created, the authority to make definitive decisions about them would no longer be his. The authority belongs to DC because Bob Kane decided it should.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

I understand what you mean. In the painting, we don't know what the figure is screaming at, and in Kane's original work, we don't know what made the Joker white. However, if the artist of "The Scream" sold the rights of that concept to a group that produced a series of works that revealed the character is screaming at a giant potato, that would become the truth of it.

But I would know, sub consciously, that that wouldn't necessarily be "the truth". How can it be the truth? It's one thing to own somebody else's work to make some money; it's another thing to know the secrets behind somebody else's work. Nobody knows the answers behind a piece of art other than the artist. Hell, even the actual artist might be unknown to things within their own art-work. For example: the artist of the Scream picture might not even have considered what the person is screaming at -- they might have painted it just to represent a fable of art: we all have an interpretation, and all those interpretations can co-exist, but all are equally as valid, in the grand scheme of things.

That's the message I'm getting from that piece of art. Surely, surely, no person with a fancy job title can take that aspect away from us...??

 

[Saint]

But I would know, sub consciously, that that wouldn't necessarily be "the truth". How can it be the truth? It's one thing to own somebody else's work to make some money; it's another thing to know the secrets behind somebody else's work.

It's not Bob Kane's work. You're stuck on this idea that he created these character singlehandedly, but he didn't. If Bob had sat in a room with a hundred other creators and created Batman, you wouldn't stand here and tell me he still has ultimate authority, because Batman would be a joint creation.

Here's the kicker: he still is a joint creation; only the timeframe is different. Bob Kane never entertained any notions of determining the fate of the character--he didn't care to, which is why he had Finger (and others) ghost write him. By the very act of creating a character for hire he was making a joint creation, because he knew the company would have it's input, and then would do with the character as they saw fit, post-creation, and that if the character endured, other writers would do their part, too.

Hell, even the actual artist might be unknown to things within their own art-work. For example: the artist of the Scream picture might not even have considered what the person is screaming at -- they might have painted it just to represent a fable of art: we all have an interpretation, and all those interpretations can co-exist, but all are equally as valid, in the grand scheme of things.

That's the message I'm getting from that piece of art. Surely, surely, no person with a fancy job title can take that aspect away from us...??

Imagine all you like--but your version of a piece and the original version of a piece are not the same, by virtue of one being original and yours being derivative. And, as I said, when an artist volunteers the authority to make the decisions about the original version to someone else, it is just as if he were making those decisions himself.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

Those realities (and the effects of the law, as I mentioned) are what make the official version more valid. Perhaps valid isn't the word I should be using, but in any case there is a level of "truth" afforded to canonical versions. You're right, this is mainly because of the practicality and reality of commerce and production (which was one of my points), but I would also argue it is simply a reality of fiction. The story that is told is, in my opinion, more "real" than the story that is heard or the story that is preferred by the person listening because the latter doesn't exist without the former.

Yes, this is exactly what I said earlier. The story that is 'told' is accorded more authority than any other, because of the false authority given to reasons such as the method and vehicle of production. However, it is wrong to accord this authority for reasons such as whose telling it and how, as all interpretations are valid regardless of them, and you are simply repeating what I earlier said: that the mechanics of production define what is considered 'definite.' In actuality, this should not be, and taking the view that these 'realities...are what make the official version more valid' does not provide an argument against what I am saying, it merely suggests why it is that people do not share my view. If you were told your whole life that carrots were instantly fatal if you ate them that doesn't make it true, or provide an argument for carrots actually being poisonous, it just explains why you think they are.

Moreover, I would question at what point the other interpretation can still be described as mere "interpretation" instead of something else entirely.

I would say the line between and interpretation and a new character is drawn at continuity. For example, Geoff Johns' interpretation of Batman is different than Grant Morrison's, but both can be said to not contradict each other to the point that they must be called different characters, or that they must be said to exist in different continuities. Your example of the Gold-skinned Joker crosses the line in that it would require an alternate continuity, and I question where that can be still be called an "interpretation." It seems more accurate to call it a new character.

Well, the fact that all interpretations are valid and equal leads into a theory called intertextuality, which I won't get you too bogged down in, but it basically argues that there because everything (text/reader/writer) is equal, there are no boundaries between 'stories' or 'characters' at all - every text is intimately connected with every other text. An X-Men comic is a Batman comic is a Roman epic poem is an advert on the bus. All are tightly interwoven in a series of influences and shared features. So there is no line between 'new character' or 'interpretation' - all interpretations are simultaneously new and old, they are every single story ever told, but new (if that makes sense) and they are all equally valid. Is this blowing your mind yet? Ultimately, a gold-skinned Joker is as valid as a white skinned Joker (why should it not be?), and in fact, is the same as a white skinned Joker... Crazy, huh?

 

[Sunburned Hand]

Imagine all you like--but your version of a piece and the original version of a piece are not the same, by virtue of one being original and yours being derivative. And, as I said, when an artist volunteers the authority to make the decisions about the original version to someone else, it is just as if he were making those decisions himself.

As I've just mentioned above - all texts are ultimately derivative and feed off each other. They are the same, and they are equal.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

It's not Bob Kane's work. You're stuck on this idea that he created these character singlehandedly, but he didn't. If Bob had sat in a room with a hundred other creators and created Batman, you wouldn't stand here and tell me he still has ultimate authority, because Batman would be a joint creation.

Eh? What a "forest for the trees" argument you have constructed. You are now moving on to "What if" scenarios, and purposefully missing the implications of the points I am making. If you're going to be an ass about it; so will I.

Here's the kicker: he still is a joint creation; only the timeframe is different. Bob Kane never entertained any notions of determining the fate of the character--he didn't care to, which is why he had Finger (and others) ghost write him. By the very act of creating a character for hire he was making a joint creation, because he knew the company would have it's input, and then would do with the character as they saw fit, post-creation, and that if the character endured, other writers would do their part, too.

And yet, one could say that the Scream painting is a joint creation, because others have contributed to the analysis of the picture. That still doesn't change the fact that their own analysis is just as valid as ours -- only theirs has been imprinted onto some glossy paper. It doesn't matter whether Bob Kane sold the product, because, by this, you are implying that Bob Kane automatically agrees with every decision DC makes about the Joker.

He probably didn't sell the Batman franchise to DC for the "wealth" of the character -- he probably didn't give a s**t about DC and what they do to HIS characters... he was just in it to make some money. That still doesn't change the fact that he is the artist behind Batman and all of its characters, and no one knows more about a piece of art than the actual composer.

Imagine all you like--but your version of a piece and the original version of a piece are not the same, by virtue of one being original and yours being derivative. And, as I said, when an artist volunteers the authority to make the decisions about the original version to someone else, it is just as if he were making those decisions himself.

But he isn't making the decisions for himself. I've tried to make symbolic arguments, and you guys have totally blown them off. So I will just do the same to you.

 

[Saint]

Yes, this is exactly what I said earlier. The story that is 'told' is accorded more authority than any other, because of the false authority given to reasons such as the method and vehicle of production.

That's true, but that's not what I meant when I mentioned the the authority of the "told" story over the one that is "heard" or repeated. I meant that the told story is given more authority than alternate interpretations by virtue of those interpretations being derivative.

Well, the fact that all interpretations are valid and equal leads into a theory called intertextuality, which I won't get you too bogged down in, but it basically argues that there because everything (text/reader/writer) is equal, there are no boundaries between 'stories' or 'characters' at all - every text is intimately connected with every other text. An X-Men comic is a Batman comic is a Roman epic poem is an advert on the bus. All are tightly interwoven in a series of influences and shared features. So there is no line between 'new character' or 'interpretation' - all interpretations are simultaneously new and old, they are every single story ever told, but new (if that makes sense) and they are all equally valid. Is this blowing your mind yet? Ultimately, a gold-skinned Joker is as valid as a white skinned Joker (why should it not be?), and in fact, is the same as a white skinned Joker... Crazy, huh?

I was wondering if you would bring this up when I made that post. Obviously, everything is derivative of something else, as you've pointed out. But, as with everything, it's all about degrees. There is a critical difference in thematically derivative, for example, and being more overt, such as creating a character called the Joker who's only significant difference from the existing work is skin colour. I would definitely categorize one as more derivative than the other, and thus worth less. You could say that because every element--even in ostensibly "original" works--comes from somewhere else that every work is completely derivative, but I believe there is something to be said for taking these elements and configuring them in new ways. In other words, if you steal a dozen vegetables and make a salad, that is more truly your own work than if you steal a carrot and paint it yellow. One is more derivative of the original stolen product than the other.

 

[Mr. Socko]

............aye, yie yie..............

 

[Sunburned Hand]

That's true, but that's not what I meant when I mentioned the the authority of the "told" story over the one that is "heard" or repeated. I meant that the told story is given more authority than alternate interpretations by virtue of those interpretations being derivative.


I was wondering if you would bring this up when I made that post. Obviously, everything is derivative of something else, as you've pointed out. But, as with everything, it's all about degrees. There is a critical difference in thematically derivative, for example, and being more overt, such as creating a character called the Joker who's only significant difference from the existing work is skin colour. I would definitely categorize one as more derivative than the other, and thus worth less. You could say that because every element--even in ostensibly "original" works--comes from somewhere else that every work is completely derivative, but I believe there is something to be said for taking these elements and configuring them in new ways. In other words, if you steal a dozen vegetables and make a salad, that is more truly your own work than if you steal a carrot and paint it yellow. One is more derivative of the original stolen product than the other.

Well, as intertextuality states, all texts are inherently derivataive, and the derivation is not limited to theme or character - those are merely the outward signs - the derivation goes far deeper, to the language and the very structure of a text. To use your nice analogy, even the make-up of the salad is always going to be derivative, all the salad recipes are one and the same, all the derivations are one and the same. You cannot (unfortunately?) take elements and configure them in new ways because everything is derivative. So there is no sliding scale of derivation, and thus no ultimate way in which one text can be said to be 'definitive' or more 'valid' or less derivative. The painted carrot is the same as the varied salad.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

I can't believe I just wrote 'The painted carrot is the same as the varied salad.'

 

[Mr. Socko]

The movies are not canon with the comic books, they're in a different continuity of their own. I don't see what else there is to discuss on that end.

 

[Saint]

Eh? What a "forest for the trees" argument you have constructed. You are now moving on to "What if" scenarios, and purposefully missing the implications of the points I am making. If you're going to be an ass about it; so will I.

I'm not being an ass (for once). I was presenting a situation in which you would accept the joint responsibility for creation, and then explaining how that scenario relates to the reality of Batman's creation.

And yet, one could say that the Scream painting is a joint creation, because others have contributed to the analysis of the picture.

No, because the act of contribution and analysis are not the same. Contribution occurs during production and affects the final work; analysis occurs after production and only affects perception of the the work as it has been produced.

Batman is a joint creation because production never finished, and because Kane volunteered authority over production to others.

That still doesn't change the fact that their own analysis is just as valid as ours -- only theirs has been imprinted onto some glossy paper. It doesn't matter whether Bob Kane sold the product, because, by this, you are implying that Bob Kane automatically agrees with every decision DC makes about the Joker.

No, that's not what I meant. Bob Kane doesn't have to agree--he was not interested in agreeing. If he wanted Batman to be solely his work, he would have taken it elsewhere or published in independently.

There is an issue here in that you seem to be approaching Batman as having been a finished work that Kane then presented, and other artists then extrapolated on. This isn't the case. Batman was never a finished work, and is still not a finished work. He was designed--by Kane--to be ongoing, and ongoing without Kane necessarily at the helm.

He probably didn't sell the Batman franchise to DC for the "wealth" of the character -- he probably didn't give a s**t about DC and what they do to HIS characters... he was just in it to make some money.

Well, that's just it: he didn't sell Batman to DC. They commissioned it. You call it "his character," but it never was. DC hired him to create a character to capitalize on Superman's popularity, with the understanding that, once created, the character would belong to them. So, he created Batman. You're stuck on this idea that Kane created something that DC took and tampered with, but that simply isn't the case. Bob Kane did not create Batman singlehandedly--he was created by DC, Kane, Finger, and then every artist and writer to come along since then, because the character was not created to be finite. Batman is a work in progress.

That still doesn't change the fact that he is the artist behind Batman and all of its characters, and no one knows more about a piece of art than the actual composer.

And in this instance, the "composer" is not Bob Kane--but rather, Kane and scores of other people.

 

[Saint]

Well, as intertextuality states, all texts are inherently derivataive, and the derivation is not limited to theme or character - those are merely the outward signs - the derivation goes far deeper, to the language and the very structure of a text.

Yes--like I mentioned, on an entirely honest level, every element of every work is derivative, as it comes from somewhere else. Nevertheless, configuration can be unique. You could argue that configuration is influenced by other things, and thus, while ostensibly unique, only exists because it is built on those ideas previously absorbed, but there is still something to be said for the ability to arrange the elements in a way not yet done, even though the arrangement is only possible because of previous ideas. That is where the degrees come in: how far removed is your derivative idea from the ideas you're stealing? How recognizable is it? How well have you disguised it? In the end, sure, a salad is just vegetables, but you can make a million different kinds of salad, and you can make a salad that nobody else has made before. The sald nobody has ever made before is better than the one everybody makes, despite the fact that both are just vegetables in the end.

To use your nice analogy, even the make-up of the salad is always going to be derivative, all the salad recipes are one and the same, all the derivations are one and the same. You cannot (unfortunately?) take elements and configure them in new ways because everything is derivative.

I'm not sure how one follows from the other. The elements being derivative does not mean the configuration cannot be unique. It's degree of uniqueness can be more or less, but unique it can be.

So there is no sliding scale of derivation, and thus no ultimate way in which one text can be said to be 'definitive' or more 'valid' or less derivative. The painted carrot is the same as the varied salad.

Obviously I can't subscribe to that.

 

[Mr. Superhero]

I'm not being an ass (for once). I was presenting a situation in which you would accept the joint responsibility for creation, and then explaining how that scenario relates to the reality of Batman's creation.

There was no "joint creation". Your scenario doesn't work, because you are saying that fifty-years of evolution equates to the original creation of the Joker. You are saying that character evolution can be linked to the original thought-process behind the comic-book presentation of the Joker, and how that evolution is well within its rights to destroy any mystical aspect behind the Joker.

Bob Kane and Bill Finger intended the Joker to have no origin story. They wrote the character so that he didn't have an origin story; he is just there, and he is f*****g nuts.

No, because the act of contribution and analysis are not the same. Contribution occurs during production and affects the final work; analysis occurs after production and only affects perception of the the work as it has been produced.

Batman is a joint creation because production never finished, and because Kane volunteered authority over production to others.

But the original "production" of the Joker implied that he had no origin. There was no explanation behind the perma-white skin. He was a character of mystery. I can see the difference between a contribution and an analysis, but it cannot be applied to this instance, because people are analyzing HOW the Joker ended up with bleached skin. I aren't contributing to it, because the character's origin was never intended to be a means of contribution. The only contribution that the writers sought out was that of the reader -- they left it up to the reader to decide how the Joker ended up with white skin... and the DC execs have tried to blow that straight out of the window by selling the chemical bath origin as an all-encompassing truth, when in reality, it is nothing more than a mere analysis/theory on how the Joker came to be.

The Scream painting is a finished piece of art, but the Joker's characterization was also a finished piece of art, before it was tampered with, and then sold as a "fact" -- until the DC execs tried to rip apart the exact premise of art: INTERPRETATION.

No, that's not what I meant. Bob Kane doesn't have to agree--he was not interested in agreeing. If he wanted Batman to be solely his work, he would have taken it elsewhere or published in independently.

There is an issue here in that you seem to be approaching Batman as having been a finished work that Kane then presented, and other artists then extrapolated on. This isn't the case. Batman was never a finished work, and is still not a finished work. He was designed--by Kane--to be ongoing, and ongoing without Kane necessarily at the helm.

But the Joker character, in of itself, was a finished piece of work, in all actuality. The character has no renowned origin; the character is just some crazy guy with white skin. That is all Bob Kane ever intended the Joker to be, I am sure. Sure, you can use that character to present stories -- to present anarchy -- to present different interpretations of the character -- but the main themes and constants will always be intact: he has white skin, green hair, hates Batman and finds crime amusing.

Then, people from DC sought to analyze how the Joker became the Joker. The chemical bath origin may be seen as a contribution, but it is also an analysis -- but hey, I'm simply going by your logic.

In the end, whether or not the Joker is a "finished article" in terms of what the character means and how he acts is a totally different issue, but the main point is that the origin of the character was never meant to be revealed, and the only people who would know of the true origin of the character are the creators, just as the only person who would know what the person is screaming at in the Scream painting is the actual artist. People who try to explain things regarding those pieces of art, regardless of their job title, are, essentially, guessing and analyzing that particular piece of art-work. Ergo, how is that guessing any more valid than my own guessing? I just don't get that. And please don't respond with the "It is DC canon so there is no room for debate" stuff, please -- it hurts my...eyes.

Well, that's just it: he didn't sell Batman to DC. They commissioned it. You call it "his character," but it never was. DC hired him to create a character to capitalize on Superman's popularity, with the understanding that, once created, the character would belong to them. So, he created Batman. You're stuck on this idea that Kane created something that DC took and tampered with, but that simply isn't the case. Bob Kane did not create Batman singlehandedly--he was created by DC, Kane, Finger, and then every artist and writer to come along since then, because the character was not created to be finite. Batman is a work in progress.

DC Comics is just a business group. Bob Kane and Bill Finger are the people who keep DC Comics with its head above water. Again, this "forest for the trees" argument is becoming more and more apparent. Who created the Joker character? Bob Kane and Bill Finger. DC Comics were simply a means to an end.

And in this instance, the "composer" is not Bob Kane--but rather, Kane and scores of other people.

"Creator", then, shall we say? I mean, if you insist that "other people" compose the Joker character, then why do you insist that my own ideas and preferences about the character are not as important as those who have a nifty job at DC Comics? This is the entire debate in a nut-shell. The writers of DC Comics are just ordinary people, like you and me. The only difference being that they are pretty good writers and have a good understanding of comic-books. How their collective interpretation of the Joker's origin is any more valid than my own I do not know. I could write a story about the Joker; acquire myself a successful publisher; and then sell my product. Would I be selling my product as a factual resource for Joker information? Hell no. I'd just be there to entertain people -- to expand the vision of others. To basically publicize my art-work. I'm sure Sunburned Hand would tell you this, too...

 

[Sunburned Hand]

I'm not sure how one follows from the other. The elements being derivative does not mean the configuration cannot be unique. It's degree of uniqueness can be more or less, but unique it can be.

No, as I said before, all configurations (or as I said the 'structure' or 'make-up') are derivative, as well as the elements. Both are inextricably linked. And go look up 'unique' in the dictionary, I'll think you'll find then that there are no 'degrees' of uniqueness.

Moreover, even if a state of 'uniqueness' was to exist in regards to a text (which is something of an impossibility), that in itself is no signifier of value. At any rate, all this is far removed from my original point, which still stands and has remained constant. There are no 'truths', no 'facts' concerning fictional characters and the texts they inhabit. All interpretations are equally valid. There can be no 'definitive' origin for the Joker, just as there can be no definitive Joker, because as a fictional creation there is no 'real' or empirical information to define the definitive. The predominance of any particular interpretation is merely the result of the mechanics of production, or general ignorance. Author, text and reader exist equally and thus none can claim dominance. Case closed.

Obviously I can't subscribe to that.

Replace 'subscribe to' with 'argue convincingly against' and you've just about got it.

 

[CaptainClown]

god I love this thread

 

[The Shape]

god I love this thread

It's sad that it's gonna be closed soon. It's almost at 20,000 posts, and that's when they usually close threads and new ones have to be made.

 

[Sunburned Hand]

god I love this thread

Dude, I was going to say I think I just killed it, but we all know for a fact it will rise again. I guarantee that tomorrow someone will post something along the lines of 'teh acid bath is the definitive Joker, teh permawhite is teh bestest.' Then someone will post a retort: 'Teh make-up is teh greatest. Ledger's is the only Joker.'

 

[Saint]

The first chunk of your post all is mostly repeating the same two points, so rather than my usual piece-by-piece rebuttal, I'll just address them.

1. You say that Kane intended for the Joker to have no origin.

This is not based on anything besides your own wishing. Kane may well have intended to reveal the origin later, or have someone else reveal it, or he may have simply not decided on one yet. We don't know. Either way, his intentions were irrelevant for reasons I've explained previously. If I repeat them, you'll just repeat your argument again and we'll go in circles. Accordingly, I won't repeat them, and if you want to know what they are, you can re-read my previous posts.

2. You say Joker was a finished work of Kane's.

This I disagree with for precisely the same reason as in my example of the creation of Batman. Again, you can read it in my previous posts--I don't want to repeat it only to have you repeat your own arguments and trap us in a loop.

Now, a couple of other items:

DC Comics is just a business group.

Correct: and it is their business to sell fiction. This means they contribute to it when necessary, either through editors or other means.

"Creator", then, shall we say? I mean, if you insist that "other people" compose the Joker character, then why do you insist that my own ideas and preferences about the character are not as important as those who have a nifty job at DC Comics? This is the entire debate in a nut-shell. The writers of DC Comics are just ordinary people, like you and me. The only difference being that they are pretty good writers and have a good understanding of comic-books. How their collective interpretation of the Joker's origin is any more valid than my own I do not know.

It would be more valid by virtue of being official, and by being the original to your derivative. I have explained the reason of this previously; you are welcome to go read it. Sunburned Hand and I have debated whether or not it's proper so assign this validity for those reasons, but the end result remains the same.

I could write a story about the Joker; acquire myself a successful publisher; and then sell my product.

No you couldn't. No publisher would take it because you (and they) would be sued into the next dimension.

 

[StylishHokie21]

It's sad that it's gonna be closed soon. It's almost at 20,000 posts, and that's when they usually close threads and new ones have to be made.

I hope another one doesn't get made to be honest.

 

[The Shape]

I hope another one doesn't get made to be honest.

It wouldn't be the same, anyway.