- Interesting theory. But an aside: the Joker's real name is never even alluded to be "Jack" in this story.
Grant Morrison themself is the one to voice this interpretation of what happens
. They also note that while certain elements of the story have gone on to be part of Batman's official history (Barbra Gordon being paralyzed), Morrison says that this is a possible final Batman story, an Elseworlds story if you will.
- Nice try, but Morrison is a reader like everyone else. Alan Moore's script, and his later pronouncements make it clear that there was never any intent for some of the more extreme readings of the story (i.e. Batman killed the Joker, Joker raped Barbara, Joker had Commissioner Gordon sexually tortured, etc.). ZERO. It was not written in the script. Like AT ALL. It plain does not exist in the story as written. Any such suggestion is purely speculation on the part of the reader. Especially the first two, which Moore has gone to great lengths to say never happened in the story.
- Of course it's speculation. Isn't that why the original poster put it here? In any case, the script isn't the final story; the story is what matters.
- Nice try, but Morrison is a reader like everyone else. Alan Moore's script, and his later pronouncements make it clear that there was never any intent for some of the more extreme readings of the story (i.e. Batman killed the Joker, Joker raped Barbara, Joker had Commissioner Gordon sexually tortured, etc.). ZERO. It was not written in the script. Like AT ALL. It plain does not exist in the story as written. Any such suggestion is purely speculation on the part of the reader. Especially the first two, which Moore has gone to great lengths to say never happened in the story.
Two years before The Killing Joke, Alan Moore created his farewell to Superman's silver age, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow. If the Killing Joke is meant as a finale for Batman, then Moore is essentially copying his own premise onto a different character. The details of the two stories differ, but the idea of the 'end of an era', a farewell to a version of a character is something Moore wouldn't want to directly revisit. Moore plays with the concept in Supreme, looking at the genesis of a hero and villain separately, but his disdain for the one of the quintessential Joker stories arises from its basis (in his mind, if Morrison is correct) as a copy of one of his earlier works.
A sort of alternative to the "he kills the Joker" interpretation, which I find to be a tad unimaginative. The idea that the Joker has No Fourth Wall is well-known, and is sometimes touted as a reason for why he does what he does - after all, who would care for the "lives" of a bunch of ink-and-paper constructs? For almost five decades, real-time, the Joker relished in his status: since he knew he was one of DC's most popular villains, he knew that he could never die, and that for the most part, he could do as he liked as long as Batman beat him at the end of a caper (but never permanently). As time went on, however, the sheer repetition wore on him; his awareness of the fourth wall meant that he could sense time passing in real-time, and remember every single adventure, while everyone else "reset" their memories as needed. Everything came to a head in TKJ, where the Joker, so utterly desperate to break the cycle and free himself from his endless obligations as Batman's Top Villain, went out and committed the most disgusting atrocity he could think of to shock Batman into admitting that their lives are only a comic book, where conflicts and character are defined by the necessities of the plot and nothing else. And after that... hell, he could very well have been aiming for Batman to kill him, so he could be freed of the cycle.
Whether or not the Joker succeeded at this (not to mention how much he succeeded) is a matter of further debate. Batman's laughing breakdown at the end could signify that he, at least to an extent, acknowledges that his entire life is nothing but words on a page created to entertain some bored civilian populace. But then, Batman's further offer to "help" the Joker (an offer that the Joker knows holds no water, since DC editorial would never let him be reformed) could imply that that doesn't matter. They're still characters in a comic book, bound by the rules thereof, and they couldn't break free if they tried.
I mean, surely it's not a coincidence that when Batman gives the first "heh", he's staring directly at the audience?
Honestly, this could just as easily fit in Fridge Brilliance, but since there's no solid proof, it belongs here. At first glance, the joke seems fairly straightforward: two crazy people, each crazy in their own way. That is, until you realize just how far it goes.
Obviously, the two inmates represant Batman and the Joker. That much is obvious. The asylum represents their mutual insanity. The entire plot of the comic is centered around Batman trying to convince the Joker to reform. Batman was able to escape his brand of craziness fairly easily - he just used it for good. The Joker, however, is more dangerous. He can't just reform instantly - he wouldn't make it.
What Batman is proposing, walking the Joker through recovery, helping him heal, is probably impossible at this point. The Joker's been too far gone for a while. But that's not what scares him. What scares him is Batman abandoning him part way through, that he won't stick to his promise. And why would he?
They're both insane.
We never hear The Joker actually telling anyone his origin story, greatly reducing the possibility of him being an Unreliable Narrator. It's only shown via random flashbacks (albeit triggered in parallel with certain images beforehand). It's possible that while The Joker himself doesn't remember things clearly, and admits as much, what we're seeing is the objective reality of his past, un-muddled by his madness. This adds a layer of tragedy to the mix, since we know what drove The Joker to madness, but not himself, and therefore has no way of coming to terms with what made him into what he is.
- I agree with this. Moore in interviews indicated that he believed that the origin was true as well, and Multiple-Choice Past only serves to Handwave why the early origin story The Man Behind the Red Hood is different. In that story, told via a framing device of Silver Age Batman telling an adventure to a class of kids, Joker at the end confesses to Batman that he was the Red Hood and Batman says Red Hood was a mastermind. So Moore was just explaining why Joker said that then (when he'd have no reason to lie in that situation) and why Batman believed that, and even then Batman has no explanation for who the Red Hood was, except that the Red Hood became the Joker. So Moore invented the idea that the chemical bath damaged Joker's memories and recollection, the Red Hood gang was a themed gang that put patsies underneath the helmets, and this adds to the poignancy, that Joker based his identity and understanding of past on Batman's Entertainingly Wrong assumption, which also adds to the whole Create Your Own Villain dynamic between them.
- Being asexual doesn't mean hating or being unable to do anything sexual.
- It has been stated that the Joker didn't rape Barbara
- Harley Quinn would like to have a word with you about the Joker’s sexuality…
