What is better: Evil Villains or sympathetic villains?

[The Overlord]

Even though he's rarely done anything harmless in the past 15 years (which, as I said, I credit to his interactions with Batman), what he does has been so varied and, in many cases, contradictory, that it supposed Morrison's idea. He's been a serial killer, a terrorist, a political assassin, a cult leader, a crime boss, a thief, and various combinations thereof. And even how he carries himself, from being a quietly smiling psycho to being a flamboyant and over the top cartoonish super villain, has varied.

I go with the Morrison approach for two reasons: One, it helps the continuity, tying all the various versions of the character together, and two, it's a hell of a lot more interesting than simply having him be an eccentric sociopath.

But the problem is, for the past 15 years, the methods may vary, but the core personality stays the same: evil psychopath, being over dramatic doesn't make one insane, Joker being a funny psychopath one week and more serious one the next doesn't really change anything.

Serial killer, terrorist, crime boss, cult leader those are just methods to reach the same goal, not different personalities.

The fact is for the past 15 years, he has been written as a psychopath, not someone who is criminally insane.

 

[The Question]

But the problem is, for the past 15 years, the methods may vary, but the core personality stays the same: evil psychopath, being over dramatic doesn't make one insane, Joker being a funny psychopath one week and more serious one the next doesn't really change anything.

Serial killer, terrorist, crime boss, cult leader those are just methods to reach the same goal, not different personalities.

The fact is for the past 15 years, he has been written as a psychopath, not someone who is criminally insane.

I'm not saying that being over dramatic makes him insane. But the variety of personality quirks that he goes through, some of which are fairly contradictory, gives credence to the idea that his personality is fluid. I think that he's been written as being much more unstable than a simple psychopath, since, as I've been saying, his methods, goals, and motivations have changed on a story to story basis. Sometimes he just likes killing things for fun. Sometimes he;s trying to prove some kind of philosophical point. Sometimes it's a lust for power or money. Sometimes it's revenge. It;s all villainous, yes, but I think that, for that, Batman is to blame. In The Joker's mind, he's a performer on a stage. He's become obsessed with Batman because he sees him as the perfect straight man, and crafts his "act" around Batman, filling the role of the arch villain for Batman to be a foil to. If there were no Batman, his "performances" would probably be even less congruous.

 

[The Overlord]

I'm not saying that being over dramatic makes him insane. But the variety of personality quirks that he goes through, some of which are fairly contradictory, gives credence to the idea that his personality is fluid. I think that he's been written as being much more unstable than a simple psychopath, since, as I've been saying, his methods, goals, and motivations have changed on a story to story basis. Sometimes he just likes killing things for fun. Sometimes he;s trying to prove some kind of philosophical point. Sometimes it's a lust for power or money. Sometimes it's revenge. It;s all villainous, yes, but I think that, for that, Batman is to blame. In The Joker's mind, he's a performer on a stage. He's become obsessed with Batman because he sees him as the perfect straight man, and crafts his "act" around Batman, filling the role of the arch villain for Batman to be a foil to. If there were no Batman, his "performances" would probably be even less congruous.

But all that changes is the quirks, not the core personality, that always stays the same.

Joker is an evil psychopath nihilist who likes spreading pain, chaos and sorrow because he thinks its funny and to torment Batman. All of his actions flow out of that core motive. So his personality doesn't really change at its core.

The reason he is interested money is because he needs it to help him in that cause. All the other motives you mentioned fit into the same one motive I mentioned above.

Joker isn't written insane, if he was a real court of law, he wouldn't be found insane. I see no evidence that Joker doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, that is what makes one insane or not, according the law.

 

[The Question]

But all that changes is the quirks, not the core personality, that always stays the same.

Joker is an evil psychopath nihilist who likes spreading pain, chaos and sorrow because he thinks its funny and to torment Batman. All of his actions flow out of that core motive. So his personality doesn't really change at its core.

The reason he is interested money is because he needs it to help him in that cause. All the other motives you mentioned fit into the same one motive I mentioned above.

Joker isn't written insane, if he was a real court of law, he wouldn't be found insane. I see no evidence that Joker doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, that is what makes one insane or not, according the law.

This is really turning into a case of "No, MY interpretation of the character is better...."

 

[Arach Knight]

it's a hell of a lot more interesting than simply having him be an eccentric sociopath.

You used the word yourself. Simplicity. Why must a villain have these dynamic motivations and deep social issues? I think that sometimes ruins story telling. Why do you think most comic books are in shambles now? Everyone tries to add their own little touch to a character or their backstory, that things become diluted/convoluted. Joker has avoided all of that for the better part of his history by simply being an evil person, doing evil things. If Joker were something less human...if he were a demon, then he would not be so heavily questioned. He would be deemed as a being of pure evil and as such, needs no motivation. What stops the Joker from being the same way? His humanity? I think the Joker is a more accuate reflection of evil, than most comic figures.

Most children fear fictitious creatures that go bump in the night. Some fear dogs and bears...but I say that man is the most feared beast to crawl across God's green earth. The Joker, in my mind (and in correlation with most interpretations) represents that very fact. Man isn't altruistic (Batman certainly isn't). Man does not always have to do evil deeds for a reason. Sometimes man is just a monster with a pretty face. That is the Joker. A monster...with a pretty face.

 

[The Question]

You used the word yourself. Simplicity. Why must a villain have these dynamic motivations and deep social issues? I think that sometimes ruins story telling. Why do you think most comic books are in shambles now? Everyone tries to add their own little touch to a character or their backstory, that things become diluted/convoluted. Joker has avoided all of that for the better part of his history by simply being an evil person, doing evil things. If Joker were something less human...if he were a demon, then he would not be so heavily questioned. He would be deemed as a being of pure evil and as such, needs no motivation. What stops the Joker from being the same way? His humanity? I think the Joker is a more accuate reflection of evil, than most comic figures.

Most children fear fictitious creatures that go bump in the night. Some fear dogs and bears...but I say that man is the most feared beast to crawl across God's green earth. The Joker, in my mind (and in correlation with most interpretations) represents that very fact. Man isn't altruistic (Batman certainly isn't). Man does not always have to do evil deeds for a reason. Sometimes man is just a monster with a pretty face. That is the Joker. A monster...with a pretty face.

Again, this is a matter of personal preference. I find the more insane take more interesting. It makes The Joker unique. Having him simply be a psychopath throws him in with a plethora of other fictional villains. Having him be a deeply broken man who was, at one point, perfectly sane and happy, gives much more meat to the character, and still serves as a reflection of the world. Not of evil itself, but of us, and how far a good person can fall into evil.

 

[The Overlord]

This is really turning into a case of "No, MY interpretation of the character is better...."

No, its that the way he has been written for the past 15 years has fit one model more than the other. You just can't square that circle. Whether you want to be written in a different way, that is not the way he has been written. He hasn't been written has insane for a long while. He has been written as a psychopath with a sense of drama. Unless you can show me evidence that he can't tell the difference between right and wrong, he hasn't been written as insane.

 

[Arach Knight]

Actually, in The Question's defense, he did post up a scan that showed the interpretation of the Joker as insane. The problem however, is that it was Grant Morrison's interpretation. He is a talented writer...but I see Grant Morrison as somebody who enjoys bucking the trend.

-Tried to make Xorn into Magneto, which would make Magneto a mass murderer and a drug addict.

-Retconned the miscarriage of Talia Al'Ghul's child.

-Made Alfred Pennyworth Bruce Wayne's real father, while turning Thomas Wayne into a drunk and Martha Wayne into a heroin addicted orgy ****e (this is in Batman R.I.P. by the way, which just started this month).

It's not that I dislike Morrison, as much as that I think he tries too hard to leave his own mark on everything he writes. I can understand introducing characters (Xorn for example, was a nice addition) but then he has to seriously jerk with the status quo of existing characters. Joker is mentally ill to the capacity that he is unable of caring about the strife of others, but it has never really been shown to be to the point where he can't grasp reality. At this point I think it is safer to say that The Question favors Morrison's interpretation (because I do limit it to Morrison) while the rest of us favor the more frequently conveyed portrayal of the Joker as an insidious man of cruel nature.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Alfred is Bruce's real father now?

 

[Arach Knight]

"Elsewhere, Commissioner Gordon tries valiantly to convince a local newspaper into not running a story on a dossier that the publication has recently came into possession of. The dossier, allegedly compiled by a detective hired by the parents of Martha Wayne (Batman's mother), contains many shocking revelations: that Alfred Pennyworth (Batman's loyal butler/confidant) is Bruce Wayne's true biological father, that Thomas Wayne was a drunk who got his wife Martha addicted to heroin, as well as photographs of an orgy involving Thomas and Martha Wayne, Alfred, and the stars of a noir film "The Black Glove". The editor also tells Gordon even bigger revelations: that Thomas Wayne may still be alive and that the "murder" of his wife Martha was part of an elaborate scheme to kill his unfaithful wife and fake his own death.

The dossier itself conceivably is part of a larger game being played by the Black Glove and his League of Villains, of which Doctor Simon Hurt is leading in their campaign against Batman. Having drugged Batman with a slashing from a tainted blade, Hurt gives M'Sieur Le Bossu and his henchmen the gargoyles, the location of the Batcave.
Batman has the Batcomputer analyze all known data he has on the Black Glove and Simon Hurt. The result Batman receives, just before he collapses due to the drug he was exposed to and a trigger phrase implanted by Doctor Hurt; Zur-En-Arrh. Upon returning, Alfred is attacked by Le Bossu and his minions"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_R.I.P.

Here is a little something about issue # 677

"The Thomas Wayne situation, though, is certainly a shocker. Even if he's not ultimately the Black Glove, the "truth" about his background, as revealed in this issue, completely changes the game. No longer is he the noble father-figure, romanticized in Batman's memory. Or at least he won't be, once Batman finds out the truth for himself. Then again, if Batman's such a great detective, why doesn't he know the truth of his father's past already?"

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=user_review&id=141

So it can be interpreted as being a red herring or it could be true. But knowing Morrison's penchant for messing with things (such as Xorn really being Magneto), I wouldn't doubt it if he really does keep things that way. The object of this mini-event is to depose of Bruce as Batman. According to Morrison, this is about a fate worse than death. I think this is a pretty good start. The parents he loved aren't the altruistic people he thought. One of the people he allowed to get closest, has in fact been lying to him since childhood. This could all crack Bruce's already fragile psyche.

 

[Arach Knight]

Double Post

 

[venom892]

Yea I really hope that that is just an elaborate lie by the Black hand to disillusion
Bats so he can quit being Batman.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Man, Batman comics have sunk to new lows. I'm glad I'm only reading Detective.

 

[Arach Knight]

Man, Batman comics have sunk to new lows. I'm glad I'm only reading Detective.

Actually...you won't be safe from the madness for long...

Batman R.I.P. Checklist

• Batman #676-681
• Detective Comics #846-850
• Nightwing #147-150
• Robin #175-176
• Batman and the Outsiders #11-13

If they still publish Legends of The Dark Knight...you could escape it by doing that. But yeah, the point I wanted to establish, was that Grant Morrison always goes for the extreme. Nothing he ever does in comics is subtle. From making Magneto a drug addict, to slaughtering a New god and Martian Man Hunter in the first five pages of his most recent event book. The flipside to that, is that

1)Some of his stuff gets retconned the instant he is off of a book (Xorn was Xorn, not Magneto, X-Men got rid of leather look etc).

2)He always goes against what has been established prior to him working on a book.

This is why I don't really buy into "the Joker is insane." Not only does it contradict the majority of his portrayals from a historical stand point, but it was also a perspective offered primarily by Grant Morrison.

 

[Vanguard07]

Wait. Martian Manhunter is dead? And which New god?

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I'm actually gonna read Dini's RIP tie-ins. I'm curious to see how he tackles Morrison's crazy ideas.

 

[Arach Knight]

Yes Martian Manhunter was killed by Libra and the new Secret Society. And Orion is dead...but there is no word on who his killer is yet. I'm not reading Final Crisis...i'm just loosely following it when I pick up my pull list.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I'm pretty sure the killer of all the New Gods was revealed to be the Source.

 

[BrianWilly]

Darkseid killed Orion, when they fought at the end of Countdown.

 

[The Question]

Actually, in The Question's defense, he did post up a scan that showed the interpretation of the Joker as insane. The problem however, is that it was Grant Morrison's interpretation. He is a talented writer...but I see Grant Morrison as somebody who enjoys bucking the trend.

-Tried to make Xorn into Magneto, which would make Magneto a mass murderer and a drug addict.

-Retconned the miscarriage of Talia Al'Ghul's child.

-Made Alfred Pennyworth Bruce Wayne's real father, while turning Thomas Wayne into a drunk and Martha Wayne into a heroin addicted orgy ****e (this is in Batman R.I.P. by the way, which just started this month).

It's not that I dislike Morrison, as much as that I think he tries too hard to leave his own mark on everything he writes. I can understand introducing characters (Xorn for example, was a nice addition) but then he has to seriously jerk with the status quo of existing characters. Joker is mentally ill to the capacity that he is unable of caring about the strife of others, but it has never really been shown to be to the point where he can't grasp reality. At this point I think it is safer to say that The Question favors Morrison's interpretation (because I do limit it to Morrison) while the rest of us favor the more frequently conveyed portrayal of the Joker as an insidious man of cruel nature.

While I agree to disagree on all other points, I don't limit the idea that The Joker is legitimately insane to Morrison. Some examples I can think of: In The Killing Joke, for example, it is suggested through the dialogue that The Joker has cut himself off from reality in order to escape the pain of day to day life. During Knightfall, he was exposed to Scarecrow's fear gas and proved immune because of his insanity. And during Joker's Last Laugh, The Spectre (Hal Jordan at the time) tried to link with The Joker's brain in order to shut it off, and the chaos of his mind not only drove off The Spectre, but caused his soul to splinter off into an insane, Jokerized version of Parallax.

 

[Arach Knight]

I'll say this much and then leave the matter be. I would not deny that the Joker holds a questionable mental state. There is little reason to be dubious of that. But I do not want to write off his brilliance, devotion and calculation as merely being a fluke of insanity. That turns him into something passive aggressive and some what ineffectual character. If he is truly so lost, then Batman is only provoking him when he does not deserve it. But as a sociopath, he does have a much more generic motivation, but it leads to a much more complex series of actions that result from that generic motivation.

The Joker is mentally ill...but it is as a sociopath (a person incapable of empathizing or sympathizing with the emotions, feelings and circumstances of those other than themselves). The entire dynamic behind Batman and his stable of rogues, are two questions. Is Batman just as mentally unhinged as doctors believe his foes to be? Is his existence provoking their actions? If the answer is yes...then Batman is indirectly the cause of much woe on the part of Gotham. If the answer is no, then these criminals are vicious and in effect provoke Batman. I enjoy that, much more than writing villains off as being unaccountable for their actions.

 

[Kitsune]

Which one does Joe Q count as?

 

[littleredhat]

The best villians are entertaining ones. A villian can be complete and utter bastard just for the sake of being a bastard but as long as he is fun to read and watch it's a great villain.

The success of Bomb Queen is proof of this.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Every review I've seen of Bomb Queen says it's one of the most god-awful things ever printed.

I agree with your argument, though. Entertainment value is paramount, and that differs depending on which hero they're arching.

 

[Varient]

Like who?

Namor.