BATMAN: THE KILLING JOKE

Well, I’ve never been a big fan of comic book heroes. Not that I have anything against them or specifically dislike them. My reaction is more of a lukewarm enh. I think I mean that in a good way because I’m entertained when I’m reading or watching them, but I don’t seek them out.

Which brings me to this week’s post and I’ve been sitting here unable to think of what to type….

Still nothing. I may have to treat this like a word association game and hope for the best.

I never considered the possibility of including graphic novels into the reading list for this type of course. However, I think it is a good idea and would like to make a suggestion for two others. I Am Legend by Richard Matheson – adapted by Steve Niles and Elman Brown. That is just such a wonderful novel that it is fun to see it presented in different formats. And then there’s the series The Walking Dead. I can’t remember the channel, but the current series on television by the same name is based on the set of graphic novels. Just throwing an idea out there.

I love the scene where the Joker declares: “I’ve demonstrated there’s no difference between me and everyone else! All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy.” It sounds like the claim of every insane person out there. I thought it was interesting that the situation that drove the Joker insane is mirrored with two other characters: Gordon and Batman. Gordon’s daughter is shot and kidnapped; Gordon is kidnapped, shown photos of his daughter, and stripped and caged. Batman visits Gordon’s daughter Barbara in the hospital and learns the extent of her injuries. Now, I don’t know what the relationship is between those two or how close they are (and that’s probably my lack of Batman knowledge), but this does seem to be somebody that he cares about. So both of these men have had to deal with potentially losing someone they’re close to; whereas the Joker lost his wife and unborn child. The situations are not exactly the same, but they are close enough to compare how the men react.

The Joker is the only one who loses it and goes over the edge. Gordon and Batman both maintain their sanity, which is evidenced in how they go after the Joker. Gordon says, “I want him brought in…And I want him brought in by the book!” And Batman complies. Both of them would be justified in seeking revenge, but they don’t.

The Joker seemed a little off to begin with. When we get some of his backstory and see the interaction between him and his wife, he is stressed about being a failed comedian. He flips out when his wife says, “Oh.” It does not see like it would take much more to send him over the edge.

So, let’s take this back to the scene about it only takes one bad day to make someone crazy. While part of me agrees with that idea (even the sanest person can take so much before they snap), this does not seem to be an idea that is supported by the rest of the book. There are two other examples of men going through the loss or abuse of a loved one; the Joker is the only person to go crazy. Gordon is even captured and tortured, and he still maintains his sanity.

I think all of this is what makes these characters interesting. Both Batman and the Joker have troubled pasts, but react in very different ways. Batman takes the more mature path, the higher road, and is dedicated to his cause. Who wouldn't want to be like that? There is a certain physical and emotional strength that is admirable. Then there’s the Joker. He has a crappy past, he’s lost it, and don’t get in his way. Who doesn’t want to be that some days? Everyone has their own unique pile of crap that they have to deal with (and some have a lot more than others); so who wouldn’t want to just say, “Screw it,” and go on a rampage? Most of us have a little voice in our heads that stops us, but I think for a lot of us that crazy rampage is a fleeting thought every now and then.

JOYRIDE by jack ketchum

When I started reading this I immediately thought of the 2001 movie with the same title starring Steve Zahn, Paul Walker, Leelee Sobieski. So when I started reading this book, it took me a little while to figure out what was going on.

By the time I realized that this was going to be a completely different story, I was intrigued by Ketchum’s story. The characters come across as believable because they have so much personal baggage. The action is so fast paced that I had a hard time putting the book down.

This book seems like an essential reading selection for this class. It fits perfectly (not that the others didn’t, but this one just so much more).

The entire book is a dialogue about which killers are crazy and which type of crazy is okay. Carole and Lee murder her abusive ex-husband. On the surface, the murder is wrong; they killed somebody after all. But once you learn about the level of abuse and that she was constantly living in fear, the murder seems okay. Wrong, but understandable. As if to justify this even more for the reader, Rule feels the same way. When Wayne enters the picture and starts his killing spree, these murderers are juxtaposed in such a way that it almost forces the reader to choose sides and see one murderer as better than the other. There is even one part were Lee says to Carole, “I think we were sort of crazy. […] I think he [Howard] made us crazy. For me, anyway…leaving, going away wouldn’t have been enough. After what he did to you…I wanted him dead.” I guess it is a little scary that the explanation makes sense; it sounds like a good reason or excuse.

The ending of the book (when Rule covers for Carole) was a little too predictable. As soon as Wayne’s girlfriend started talking and mentioned they were at the Notch, I had a feeling that Howard’s murder would be pinned on him (either by Carole taking advantage of the situation or Rule leading the investigation that direction). It was a little disappointing. However, it also comes across as a pretty strong statement that sometimes murder is okay.

I was completely surprised by how violent and extreme the murder scene towards the end was. I did not see it coming that there would be a bloodbath in the neighborhood. The random, yet brutal killings, could have been enough on their own. But then Wayne takes out most of his neighborhood in a matter of minutes. One of the worst parts of that was thinking about those who were not killed. In some instances, Wayne kills everyone in the house except for one person who he leaves behind. It just deepens the damage that he’s doing and it’s disturbing to even think about.

With as extreme as the murders were, they were believable. While I was reading the book, I was impressed by how real it all felt. But when I read “On Writing Joyride,” it all made sense. Ketchum borrowed a scene from another author and mixed in details about two real killers. On one hand, it’s interesting to see how Ketchum created these characters. On the other hand, it’s kind of scary to read something so intense and realize - after the fact - that it was based on true events.

SEVEN

I don’t know how this happened, but this was my first time watching Seven. This was a great movie and I’m disappointed that it took me so long to finally see it.

It’s interesting to have watched this movie right after reading The Sculptor because there were so many similarities between the serial killers. The Sculptor thinks he is so much smarter than everyone else, and he has a message for the world that will wake everyone from their ignorance. John Doe comes across much the same. He is smart, he has been chosen by a higher power to do his “work,” and his “work” has a message that is intended to impact society. He even makes the comment that you can’t just tap society on the shoulder to get its attention; you have to hit it with a sledgehammer. As characters, they come across as very similar. Team these two up and it would be a pretty deadly (but creative) pair.

The murders, though, share both similarities and differences. The Sculptor actually made his victims into statues. The actual identity of the victim didn’t really matter. John Doe killed his victims in a way related to their own sin and left very specific clues. The selection of his victims was important. However, both of them were amazingly patient and detailed. Not to mention, specific in terms of the messages they were trying to convey.

A few interesting points about the movie:

The conversation between Mills and Somerset about John Doe being crazy. Mills flat out calls the murderer crazy. However, Somerset says that calling him crazy underestimates the killer. It was interesting to see the conversation taking place on screen because it is the same issue we’ve discussed in this class.

To a point, Somerset seems a little crazy himself because there are times when he shows some of the same characteristics we see in John Doe. Somerset is a loner and has an incredible amount of patience. He spends hours researching and reading. He pushes forward to think and figure things out when Mills is ready to give up. Somerset just comes across as having this calculated patience that others around him lack. In addition, there was that scene where he gets up in the middle of the night and is throwing his knife at the dartboard. It was a little creepy. All of those traits work together, though, because he is clearly the man to figure out John Doe.

One of my favorite parts of this movie was the dead guy they find in the bed, with all of the air fresheners hanging from the ceiling ("sloth"). I would not have ever guessed that he was going to be alive. When he gasped and moved around…oh, it was great. Not only was that an awesome scene, but having that victim survive like that for a year says so much about the murderer. I loved it. It was a great detail.