KILLING JOKE: Rape or not

[benking]

you mean that killing joke didn't already do that?
i mean joker shot and raped her And took photo's....
i'm thinking that we are going to see powergirl and possibly.... dick grayson dead soon....

Shot, yes. Raped? Did I miss something?

[scherem]

Shot, yes. Raped? Did I miss something?

They have never said it (like they never really said Sue was, just made it pretty obvious she was), but it was applied in the Killing Joke.

[Bat-Mite]

It was never implied (or applied) for that matter. The Joker took naked pictures of her, that doesn't mean anything else only your mind is in the gutter.

[Windbreaker]

It was never implied (or applied) for that matter. The Joker took naked pictures of her, that doesn't mean anything else only your mind is in the gutter.
Or that most of us understand the horrific tendencies of Joker. I definitely got the impression that she was raped.

[Bat-Mite]

The horrific tendencies of the Joker have never included rape. Implied or otherwise.

[Kevinroc]

The horrific tendencies of the Joker have never included rape. Implied or otherwise.

But this is the "NEW, ULTRA-SCARY, SUPER DARK DCU!!!"

[Lorendiac]

The horrific tendencies of the Joker have never included rape. Implied or otherwise.

Well, maybe I had just missed it, but when the bad Dr. Light was a regular villain in the Titans books back in the early-to-mid 80s, I somehow never saw him as having a tendency toward rape, implied or otherwise. But that didn't stop DC from retroactively inserting such a tendency in last year's Identity Crisis, did it?

[Bat-Mite]

But this is the "NEW, ULTRA-SCARY, SUPER DARK DCU!!!"

.... in 1988, True rape believers!

Well, maybe I had just missed it, but when the bad Dr. Light was a regular villain in the Titans books back in the early-to-mid 80s, I somehow never saw him as having a tendency toward rape, implied or otherwise. But that didn't stop DC from retroactively inserting such a tendency in last year's Identity Crisis, did it?


And maybe I just missed something, but the whole argument was that Joker raped Barbara Gordon, despite that absolutely no clue to such act was shown in the comic, because it would fit with Joker's past behavior (behavior before 1988.) So your argument is completely invalid because Dr.Light was actually shown raping someone in the comic, unlike the Joker.

Implied or otherwise.

[moebius]

.... in 1988, True rape believers!

It's also an Alan Moore book that has the Joker torturing a naked Jim Gordon in a cage. Certainly the writer is capable of writing rape scenes (and has done so multiple times; see Watchmen, and that's 1986 for you, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen v. 2).

Why not just ask him?

I don't know if the Joker is up for something like that. On the other hand, rape is about power, and not sex. It's also not limited to our conventional ideas of sex. And the Joker is definitately capable of THAT.

[Alistair]

The horrific tendencies of the Joker have never included rape. Implied or otherwise.

I don't see why not. He's totally evil. Saying he wouldn't do such-and-such a thing is to say that he has, in some way, some kind of morality, which he absolutely does not. The rape issue in The Killing Joke is left pretty open, but given that this is the man who poisoned kids with cotton candy, I wouldn't exclude anything from the horrific crimes the Joker would commit on a whim.

And for the record, if he did do it, I would seriously doubt that he had any sexual motive. He gets his kicks from evil, not sex. He would have done it to further hurt Babs and Jim.

[Bat-Mite]

It's also an Alan Moore book that has the Joker torturing a naked Jim Gordon in a cage.

So he raped Jim too? Certainly a person can't be naked around the Joker without getting some old fashioned one eyed clown action!

Certainly the writer is capable of writing rape scenes

And he is very much capable of not writing them either. Two actual rape scenes (actually, one was an attempt of rape) in a span of more than ten years doesn't spell rape maniac to me.

Why not just ask him?

Yes, I was just about to talk to Alan Moore, but just after taking coffee with Grant Morrison and Garth Ennis, and then we will all go Alan's house for a sleepover.

And the Joker is definitely capable of THAT.


If the Joker had raped Barbara, he would have taken pictures of the rape and shown them to Jim, instead of just pictures of naked bleeding Barbara. Don't you think? Makes more sense to me, since the whole idea was to piss Jim off.

[bannermanonemillion]

The horrific tendencies of the Joker have never included rape. Implied or otherwise.

The only time I recall it being implied re: the Joker was in DKR. After Bruce finds Selina, beaten, bound and wearing a WW costume, she says, "He's worse than ever" tells Bruce not to take the girl (she's referring to the Carrie Kelly Robin) and she says "he'll....." IOW, he'll do something awful to the girl just like he did to Selina.

[Bat-Mite]

You've hidden behind the defense that rape didn't happen in mainstream comic books in 1988.

That is completely wrong and I never said anything that should take a person to even think that.

My whole argument is as following:

1- There is no indication in the book that Joker raped Barbara.
2- Nobody has ever mentioned that Barbara got raped in any book whatsoever after The Killing Joke. So rape didn't even happen as a retcon.
3- Joker has never raped any man, woman, farm animal or piece of furniture in his entire fictitious career, so you cannot say that rape is something he would do and much less something that is part of his modus operandi.

So in other words, you got nothing. Nothing except the desire to see rape where there isn't.

Believe there was also one in "Miracleman."

OK, three rape scenes in ten years.

Even if it were a hundred rape scenes in one day, that still wouldn't prove that the particular scene we are talking about was a rape. Heck, specially since we know that when the writer in particular writes a rape scene, he doesn't tend to imply or suggest such thing happened. He makes pretty sure we know what happened.

Why would Killing Joke's "rape" scene be any different? Perhaps cause it's not there.

If you send him a polite e-mail, you stand a decent chance of getting a response.

Do you happen to have Alan Moore's e-mail? You can ask him yourself then.

Cause I don't.

THAT is something that wouldn't make its way into a mainstream comic in the 80s.

I believe that a picture of Joker on top of Barbara would have been enough, since obviously a picture of penetration or anything like that is -thank God- out of the question, but no such picture exists in the entire comic.

Do you guys want to see Barbara raped? Cause otherwise I don't understand why you all want to see rape where there isn't.

[Bat-Mite]

The only time I recall it being implied re: the Joker was in DKR. After Bruce finds Selina, beaten, bound and wearing a WW costume, she says, "He's worse than ever" tells Bruce not to take the girl (she's referring to the Carrie Kelly Robin) and she says "he'll....." IOW, he'll do something awful to the girl just like he did to Selina.


It's not definitive, but I would agree that it is ambiguous.

[moebius]

OK, three rape scenes in ten years.

Oh yeah, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen vol. 1, #1 (some thugs get very close to raping Mina in Cairo) and #2 (the Invisible Man serially raping young girls at a bording school).

Nope, no tendency there to use rape or sexual violence as a story technique...none at all...

Well, Alan Moore's e-mail wasn't available. I did the next best think and asked John Ostrander, who developed Oracle in response to his disgust for Moore's treatment of Barabara in that title. The terms that I've seen him use in online responses (though these are secondhand, so not really evidence) include "rape." We'll see how he read the story.

And, back to the topic at hand...it's gonna be Diana.

[moebius]

John Ostrander responded extremely quickly (from www.comicscommunity.com/boards/ostrander):

"I tend not to badmouth other creators or their creations in public but I will say neither Kim Yale nor I were ever fans of the Killing Joke and some of that came out in our ORACLE: YEAR ONE story (which was the last thing we ever wrote together). Short version -- yes, I think she was raped. She was certainly beaten -- the art makes that plain. And the cover has the Joker taking photos from behind a camera; given the story and the only time that happens, the implication is that the reader is Barbara.

I hav a TON of respect for Alan Moore but this was Never my favorite story of his. Not by a long shot. Nuff said."

Anyway, the death can't be Batman. Won't be Clark. Badly, badly wish it was Hal, so it definitely won't be. Captain Marvel's an excellent choice.

[Bat-Mite]

Nope, no tendency there to use rape or sexual violence as a story technique...none at all...

Ok, five in ten years. The point still stands. If Alan Moore had absolutely no problem making those rapes obvious, why would he not make the one in Killing Joke obvious?

Well, Alan Moore's e-mail wasn't available. I did the next best think and asked John Ostrander, who developed Oracle in response to his disgust for Moore's treatment of Barbara in that title.

OK, let me write you a little resume of what you just did.

Since you were not able to find the only person who can answer the question properly, you went and asked this question to a person who is not the writer of the book we are wondering about, and therefor knows as much as we do. And even then, he just says he thinks it happened, but he is not sure. And even if he says he is sure, his opinion still counts as much as anybody's, since he didn't write the book.

No offense, but your actions completely fail to convince about the veracity of your point of view.

[Lorendiac]

Well, maybe I had just missed it, but when the bad Dr. Light was a regular villain in the Titans books back in the early-to-mid 80s, I somehow never saw him as having a tendency toward rape, implied or otherwise. But that didn't stop DC from retroactively inserting such a tendency in last year's Identity Crisis, did it?

And maybe I just missed something, but the whole argument was that Joker raped Barbara Gordon, despite that absolutely no clue to such act was shown in the comic, because it would fit with Joker's past behavior (behavior before 1988.) So your argument is completely invalid because Dr.Light was actually shown raping someone in the comic, unlike the Joker.

Implied or otherwise.

Okay, I think you took my passing comment in a different way than I probably intended. I was only reacting to a little piece of the argument in a brief post you made about the Joker's lack of explicit or implicit rapist tendencies in the past. I had no particular interest in trying to get involved in any in-depth discussion of the possibility of Barbara having been raped.

I personally don't claim to "know" beyond a reasonable doubt if any rape occurred in a scene "between the lines" of what we actually saw in "The Killing Joke," although I hope it didn't happen.

I wasn't trying to argue that the Dr. Light/Sue Dibny thing in "Identity Crisis" necessarily "proved" anything right now about anything that possibly did (or didn't) happen involving Joker and Barbara. Frankly, that is not a subject I have ever been very interested in studying or arguing about in the past.

As near as I can recall, what was running through my mind as I typed the material quoted above was something roughly along these lines:

1. In the 1980s, Joker did not come across as a rapist. (Ignoring arguments about how much we're supposed to assume about what happened "Between the scenes" of "The Killing Joke.")

2. Likewise, in the 1980s, Dr. Light did not come across as a rapist.

3. But last year, in Identity Crisis, we got a flashback retcon that made Dr. Light, circa the late 1970s (shortly after Iris West Allen died) a rapist. Which means that whether or not he remembered it himself in the 1980s stories I've read, he "already" had demonstrated such tendencies in the past, if we take the retcon seriously. The impression readers got of him in the 1980s was basically declared to be utterly meaningless to the question of whether or not he has it in him to be a rapist.

4. So by the same token, tomorrow morning DC could easily decide to publish a story that had Barbara admit to someone that Joker raped her, or ordered a member of his gang to rape her, back during "The Killing Joke." This would immediately "overpower" and "make irrevelevant" any arguments we currently can make that are based on such flimsy things as "logic" or "consistent characterization" or "the tone of the DCU wasn't so dark back then" or anything else that is based on past stories - their plots, their themes, their character development, the opinion of the writer of the old story regarding what he meant to suggest was going on, and all those other messy, insignificant details of the past that DC doesn't want to be bothered with these days if they don't feel like it.

Of course, if we turn that argument around, tomorrow morning DC could decide to publish a story in which Barbara made it clear the Joker crippled her but did not rape her in any way. And again, it wouldn't matter what opinions or logical deductions or "statements" anyone, editor or writer or fan, has previously expressed on the subject, nor what hints have been dropped in previous stories. Isn't that reassuring? :)

[scherem]

That is completely wrong and I never said anything that should take a person to even think that.

My whole argument is as following:

2- Nobody has ever mentioned that Barbara got raped in any book whatsoever after The Killing Joke. So rape didn't even happen as a retcon.


Have they even mentioned that Sue was raped? I don't think they have ever used the word, and by far wouldn't have used it in 1988.

[Bat-Mite]

Have they even mentioned that Sue was raped?

Heck if I know, I am not following this Infinity Identity whatever all that closely.

[Astonishing X-Fan]

I'm pretty sure they've never said "Sue was raped" but the art during that scene and Ralph's reaction makes it pretty clear.

Personally, I don't have any problem with the rape thing. I like this new turn Light has taken.

[moebius]

My whole argument is as following:

1- There is no indication in the book that Joker raped Barbara.
2- Nobody has ever mentioned that Barbara got raped in any book whatsoever after The Killing Joke. So rape didn't even happen as a retcon.
3- Joker has never raped any man, woman, farm animal or piece of furniture in his entire fictitious career, so you cannot say that rape is something he would do and much less something that is part of his modus operandi.

So in other words, you got nothing. Nothing except the desire to see rape where there isn't.

Do you guys want to see Barbara raped? Cause otherwise I don't understand why you all want to see rape where there isn't.

This is your argument:
1. You see rape where there isn't. There's no way anyone else sees things that way.
2. They never talked about it afterwards.
3. No writer has ever used rape as part of the Joker's repetoire.

1. Have I spoken with Alan Moore? No. But I did the next best thing, which is get the person who defined Barbara Gordon as a character right after the Killing Joke. His view at the time (and up today): Barbara was brutalized, including rape. This is not a "retcon"; it happened directly in the aftermath of the Killing Joke.

I have provided evidence that:
1. Comic professionals hold this opinion, so it's obviously not just the one or two posters on this board;
2. More importantly, comic professionals who have written Barbara Gordon for extended periods of time hold this opinion, so her character has been written in the past with rape being part of her backstory.

I suggest you go Google this topic, to see that for 15 years now people have been having this debate; the standard line in comic reviews of the Killing Joke is that it was "subtly implied."

My next task will be to go ask Chuck Dixon what his opinion was.

Oh, and moderator, if you want to delete or move this topic I definitely understand.

2. If you've read the Authority, then you'll know Apollo was raped during Millar's run. It was not very subtle (they had "Captain America" working his belt buckle just before). Does anyone ever come out in the comic after that and ask how Apollo's feeling? Yes. Do they use the words "rape?" Never. Does that mean it didn't happen because we didn't "watch" and there was no follow up? No. Apollo being raped has not been a theme since the issue where it happend. Doesn't make it any less of his backstory.

3. The only writer to make rape a part of the Joker's actions is Alan Moore, who has shown a tendency far above the average writer to include rape or other sexual violence in his work.

[chriskenny]

Believe there was also one in "Miracleman." I would say Moore is actually more prone to using rape as a plot device than other writers with similar resumees.

You've hidden behind the defense that rape didn't happen in mainstream comic books in 1988. That's patently false. Moore did it during Watchmen, two years before. And I don't see how an "attempted" rape is somehow less provacative than a "suggested" rape from the reader's point of view. It evokes the same images and emotions. You can still connect the dots from A-->B.



That is a cop out. Alan Moore is not Tony Blair. He's not Stephen King. He's certainly not dead. If you send him a polite e-mail, you stand a decent chance of getting a response.

My preference is to interperate as ambiguous. I personally think rape under the right circumstances is something the Joker is capable of. Again, not for sex, but for power and to drive someone insane.



THAT is something that wouldn't make its way into a mainstream comic in the 80s. I don't have my issue of the Killing Joke for me, so unfortunately, I can only argue from memory.

I don't understand what you guys are even arguing about. It was very clear in the comic that The Joker took pictures of her naked. She was NOT raped. How do I know it? It was not addressed nor was it hinted at. Being stripped naked is not the same as being raped.

[moebius]

I don't understand what you guys are even arguing about. It was very clear in the comic that The Joker took pictures of her naked. She was NOT raped. How do I know it? It was not addressed nor was it hinted at. Being stripped naked is not the same as being raped.

I would scroll up to the Ostrander quote. This is an old, old debate (15 years and running!).

[chriskenny]

Well, I've never seen it. I don't agree. To each his own.

Chris

[Apathy Boy]

I always thought the Joker raped Barbara. When a sick freak strips a helpless woman's clothes off, it's hard not to have that thought leap into your mind. When we see the photos, they're arranged in such a manner that it's kind of hard to tell what was happening - intentionally so, I thought.

So I think Moore wanted the readers to at least suspect a rape had occurred.

[Alistair]

The difference between Identity Crisis and The Killing Joke is that one was a superb Batman story and the other was an appallingly incompetently plotted miniseries with twists that utterly defied credibility and covers that utterly defied anatomy.

But you're right, this has nothing to do with Infinite Crisis and should probably be on the Bat-board.

[trickster]

The difference between Identity Crisis and The Killing Joke is that one was a superb Batman story and the other was an appallingly incompetently plotted miniseries with twists that utterly defied credibility and covers that utterly defied anatomy.

But you're right, this has nothing to do with Infinite Crisis and should probably be on the Bat-board.

Man this is becoming a habit. You want bad plotting check out Avengers Disassembled and that's all I'm gonna say.

[Alistair]

Yeah, I absolutely concur. Avengers Disassembled was diabolically bad.

Identity Crisis was not as bad as that, but it was still bloody awful. At least Morales is a good artist, unlike Finch.

[hondobrode]

I always thought the Joker raped Barbara. When a sick freak strips a helpless woman's clothes off, it's hard not to have that thought leap into your mind. When we see the photos, they're arranged in such a manner that it's kind of hard to tell what was happening - intentionally so, I thought.

So I think Moore wanted the readers to at least suspect a rape had occurred.

DC, and Alan Moore, intentionally and very carefully orchestrated the Joker / Barbara scene with the camera so it could be taken either way. I think the inference is that Joker DID rape her, but it's not blatant and won't have a hundred screaming mommies making a media stink.

The point about Apollo was good. It happened and just because it's not referred to again doesn't mean it didn't happen. It was more obvious there but could still be denied away.

[Bat-Mite]

1. Have I spoken with Alan Moore? No. But I did the next best thing,

The next best thing which is freaking useless. Ostrander didn't write that comic, so he knows just as much as we do. It doesn't matter what he thinks because his word is as valid as yours or mine.

I have provided evidence that:
1. Comic professionals hold this opinion, so it's obviously not just the one or two posters on this board;
2. More importantly, comic professionals who have written Barbara Gordon for extended periods of time hold this opinion, so her character has been written in the past with rape being part of her backstory.

Which is all useless because what you need is evidence that Batgirl was actually raped in that issue, and there is none. The opinions of other writers after that doesn't change a darn thing because they haven't said she was raped in the books they wrote either, no matter what they think.

I suggest you go Google this topic

I did. I searched for Rape Killing Joke Batman, and all I got a is a bunch of interviews with Alan Moore and reviews of the Killing Joke. A big number of those webpages never linked Killing Joke with rape. The rape Google found was in relation with Watchmen, which most pages also included. And the small number of pages that did link Killing Joke with rape where message board discussions like this were some guy says "Boy, That Joker rape Barbara!" and some guy saying "That didn't happen!" So it's not like the majority of people think rape is what happened there.

My next task will be to go ask Chuck Dixon what his opinion was.

Unless Chuck Dixon has asked Alan Moore what happened there, don't bother him. Otherwise he knows as much as we do and therefor his answer will be useless.

2. If you've read the Authority, then you'll know Apollo was raped during Millar's run. It was not very subtle (they had "Captain America" working his belt buckle just before).

So, in other words, it's JUST like the Killing joke, except for that little fact that there is a major clue implying rape occurred, which doesn't happen at all in The Killing Joke.

You have no evidence of rape.

You have not witnesses of the fact.

All you got is statements of people whose opinion counts as much as yours or mine.

You got no case.

You got nothing

The defense rests, your honor.

If you love to think Batgirl got raped, then keep thinking it happened. Just give up the nonsensical idea that you can prove it.

[Charagon]

There's just as much evidence that the Joker raped Barbara as there is that he dressed her up in a bunny outfit and made her do the bunny hop at gunpoint while singing "It's a Small World" and eating popcorn... AT THE SAME TIME!


Seriously, I just don't think rape is something Joker would do. Not his style. First of all, not creative enough for him. Secondly, Joker is more into pain and torture, not power.

[PrimalScream]

Have they even mentioned that Sue was raped? I don't think they have ever used the word, and by far wouldn't have used it in 1988.
sue who?who do u mean n who did it to her?

[The Xenos]

So he raped Jim too? Certainly a person can't be naked around the Joker without getting some old fashioned one eyed clown action!


Yeah, I don't hear anyone suggesting that. I wonder why. Surely he had the chance to rape Jim Gordon too. You could imply that just as much as raping his dauther. It's left open there as well.

It's also an Alan Moore book that has the Joker torturing a naked Jim Gordon in a cage. Certainly the writer is capable of writing rape scenes (and has done so multiple times; see Watchmen, and that's 1986 for you, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen v. 2).

Man, they should have made Identity Crisis even more like Watchmen and had a teamate like Max Lord or Hawkman rape Sue. That would have been more "edgy". (*does little quote gesture in air with fingers*)

-Xenos

[cactusmaac]

Alan Moore has never been subtle about depicting rape or sexual violence.

If he wanted to say that Barbara Gordon was raped, he'd have done so or at least supplied some very heavy implication.

He asked Len Wein if he could have the character crippled, nothing more and nothing less.

http://www.robkamphausen.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB15&Number=240149&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=7&o=&fpart=1

[The Mirrorball Man]

Well, Alan Moore's e-mail wasn't available. I did the next best think and asked John Ostrander, who developed Oracle in response to his disgust for Moore's treatment of Barabara in that title.
The next best thing would be to ask Brian Bolland, in my opinion.

[Neil]

Yeah, I don't hear anyone suggesting that. I wonder why. Surely he had the chance to rape Jim Gordon too. You could imply that just as much as raping his dauther. It's left open there as well.
Oddly enough, this keeps being thrown out as a weird counterpoint, but I know the first couple of times I read "The Killing Joke", I walked away pretty sure The Joker raped Jim Gordon. I've since become less sure, but I think that was left open for some interpretation on purpose.

Barbara? I'm much less sure of. It feels to me like Batman's dialogue looking at the pictures is that of looking at humiliating naked pictures and not of a rape. At least, that's my recollection of what made me feel that way while reading it and answering the question.

I find it interesting that John Ostrander goes to such pains to nearly apologize for having the same opinion of "The Killing Joke" as Alan Moore himself.

[moebius]

The next best thing would be to ask Brian Bolland, in my opinion.

Thought about that. Him or Denny O'Neil (as the Editor). Chuck Dixon is my best bet right now, since he's got a strong online presence (so does Ostrander).

If you have their contact info, PM me and I'll ask the question, then post Q and A on the site.

[moebius]

Alan Moore has never been subtle about depicting rape or sexual violence.

He also wasn't working with one of the 2, 3 most important comic properties, however. So subtlety would be in order. For a lesser property (Hawk and Dove, Cloak and Dagger), I could see him getting the green light to be as explicit as he wanted.

[cactusmaac]

Len Wein edited that. Not O'Neill.

[GremlinClr]

Thought about that. Him or Denny O'Neil (as the Editor). Chuck Dixon is my best bet right now, since he's got a strong online presence (so does Ostrander).

If you have their contact info, PM me and I'll ask the question, then post Q and A on the site.

Yea while you're at hows about you ask Julius Schwartz, the creator of Barbara. Or heck, what about Gail Simone over on YABS? She writing BoP after all she's sure to know!

Or…not. The only person that for sure knows is Alan Moore. The people that might know are Brian Bolland and O'Neil. You can ask every single comics professional out there and it won't matter. The only people that can give a reliable answer are the people invloved with the book.

I've read the book probably 10 times and I've never gotten the impression that she was raped. As for stripping her down and taking pictures, I assumed it was to better show Jim the HUGE GAPING HOLE IN HER ABDOMEN! You know, where he shot her and shattered her spine? Doesn't that make a little more sense then some vaugly implied (or not) rape that has NEVER once been mentioned in ANY comic in the 17 years since publication?

I don't know, call me crazy but that makes a little more sense...

[bfrank]

It's also an Alan Moore book that has the Joker torturing a naked Jim Gordon in a cage. Certainly the writer is capable of writing rape scenes (and has done so multiple times; see Watchmen, and that's 1986 for you, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen v. 2).

Why not just ask him?

I don't know if the Joker is up for something like that. On the other hand, rape is about power, and not sex. It's also not limited to our conventional ideas of sex. And the Joker is definitately capable of THAT.
hasn't he been asked, and hasn't his answer always been the same: she was not raped...

[Donald M.]

I don't think the Joker raped Barbara Gordon. As has been pointed out, there's never even a suggestion of it. The Joker shot her, then stripped her naked and took pictures. That's sick enough.

However, he had her in a position where he could have raped her, and I think that was enough for him, getting that implication across to Jim Gordon that he had his daughter in a position where he could have done anything he liked was enough to get his point across.

[CjP]

My opinion? It's just like what was in the box at the end of 'Se7en', or the briefcase in 'Pulp Fiction'... it's left to the reader to draw thier own conclusions. Many valid points were brought up on both sides... which reinforces the notion that it was intentionally ambiguous.

[Sean Whitmore]

There's no way the Joker raped her. Not because of any fading morality or line he wouldn't cross, but because he would quite frankly feel it was beneath him. He thinks of himself as the greatest criminal mind in the world (well, depending who's writing him), and in that light, raping someone probably has the same inventive criminal merit as knocking over a gas station.

Plus, let's just be honest with each other here...this is a BATMAN COMIC. Not LoEG, or Miracleman, or even Alias. BATMAN. Does anyone honestly think that Moore intentionally wrote the book in a way as to imply rape? Or to even leave it as a question mark in anyone's head? Do you think DC would have allowed such a thing?

It's only ambiguous in the sense that it's not out-and-out denied. By that logic, you could make a case for Joker dressing himself and Barbara up as Sonny and Cher and shooting a music video. :)


SEAN

[Draconomicon]

I always thought the Joker raped Barbara. When a sick freak strips a helpless woman's clothes off, it's hard not to have that thought leap into your mind. When we see the photos, they're arranged in such a manner that it's kind of hard to tell what was happening - intentionally so, I thought.

So I think Moore wanted the readers to at least suspect a rape had occurred.

Ditto.

And if Ostrander was the writer of Babs after the Killing joke and wrote her as if she was raped, then I can see that as a "legitimate retcon" for those who find it necessary.

[Forsaken_One]

Ditto.

And if Ostrander was the writer of Babs after the Killing joke and wrote her as if she was raped, then I can see that as a "legitimate retcon" for those who find it necessary.
But there was nothing he wrote, at least not in Suicide Squad but not in anything else either, that even so much as implied that she was raped. So it wouldn't be a retroactive continuity change. Nor would it be in continuity in the first place. There's no statement of it happening, there's no reference to it happening, it's all just a bunch of fans getting together and convincing themselves this happened. There's no more evidence for this happening in the comics themselves than there is Batman getting raped by Bane during Knightfall.

[moebius]

But there was nothing he wrote, at least not in Suicide Squad but not in anything else either, that even so much as implied that she was raped. So it wouldn't be a retroactive continuity change. Nor would it be in continuity in the first place. There's no statement of it happening, there's no reference to it happening, it's all just a bunch of fans getting together and convincing themselves this happened. There's no more evidence for this happening in the comics themselves than there is Batman getting raped by Bane during Knightfall.

Except he has explicitly said that he believes she was raped. Did you miss his quote? I'll repeat it, just in case it didn't get carried over from the other thread:

"I tend not to badmouth other creators or their creations in public but I will say neither Kim Yale nor I were ever fans of the Killing Joke and some of that came out in our ORACLE: YEAR ONE story (which was the last thing we ever wrote together). Short version -- yes, I think she was raped. She was certainly beaten -- the art makes that plain. And the cover has the Joker taking photos from behind a camera; given the story and the only time that happens, the implication is that the reader is Barbara.

I have a TON of respect for Alan Moore but this was Never my favorite story of his. Not by a long shot. Nuff said."

Link: http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/ostrander/?read=4644

The reason that Ostrander's opinion matters, as opposed to, say, Bendis or John Byrne (the latter of whom also believes she was raped) is that Ostrander took the character on directly after Moore. Every Oracle story he wrote since has been with the assumption that she was raped in the Killing Joke. He hasn't addressed that aspect of the story because he hasn't addressed it (not surprising, considering his opinion of the story). Doesn't mean he doesn't believe it.

That "it's all just a bunch of fans getting together and convincing themselves this happened" is patently false, as people at DC at the time of the Killing Joke, who CREATED the Oracle property in response to Moore's story, were writing under this assumption.

So, yeah, Alan Moore's opinion comes first (and quotes/sources would be great). Bolland and O'Neil or Wein (I have O'Neil as the Editor on Amazon, but could easily be wrong) are next. Ostrander and Chuck Dixon, who wrote the character in the late 80s and throughout the 90s, are next. Gail Simone is a little further removed in terms of time. Everyone else is pretty much running off their opinions.

[1HELLBOY]

The Joker did NOT rape Barbara Gordon. And, to tell the truth, I'm disgusted that any of you would think so.


First of all, as many have said, rape is beneathe Joker. Raping somebody would be, to Joker, what a common thug does. Not Joker.

Second of all, if you want to take the route of inferring that, since Joker had Jim Gordon naked and with him...no? I didn't think you'd wanna go THAT route.

And again, those who are more familiar with Moore's work have stated that he is NOT subtle about depicting rape. If she had been raped, he would have either flat out said it, or made it implied.

And you can't go by what OTHER writers say. What they put in their books and how they feel is irrelevent. You can only go by what Moore HIMSELF says. And MAYBE Bolland.

To even imply that Joker raped somebody is an insult to character. Thank you for your time.

[Sean Whitmore]

The reason that Ostrander's opinion matters, as opposed to, say, Bendis or John Byrne (the latter of whom also believes she was raped) is that Ostrander took the character on directly after Moore. Every Oracle story he wrote since has been with the assumption that she was raped in the Killing Joke. He hasn't addressed that aspect of the story because he hasn't addressed it (not surprising, considering his opinion of the story). Doesn't mean he doesn't believe it.


That's just it, though. He took up the reins next, but he never wrote that it happened. What he believes is meaningless, only what he wrote is proof of anything.

So really, it's Gail Simone's opinion that matters most right now, since she is now the writer in a position to have Barbara say "yes it happened" or "no it didn't".

Not that that will ever happen, I mean. Nobody's given us a definitive in 20 years, nobody is going to. My point is Ostrander's opinion is just that, an opinion, since he never entered it into canon. As such it has no more weight than anyone else's


SEAN

[Alan2099]

Raping her would simply be a waste of time anyway. Especially if the only thing he was going to show was pictures of her naked to Gordon. Joker was on a schedulae. Shoot babs, strip her, take photos, move on. She wasn't important enough to even bother raping. Not that I think the Joker would have done that under any circumstances. He doesn't seem to be the slightest bit intrested in sex.

Ask anyone you want, but until you ask Moore, you just don't know. That is, unless another writer goes out of their way to say it and say it without any doubt. Just having Oracle say she felt violated or soemthing won't work. She was shot though the spine, stripped, and bleeding to death while somebody took pictures. of course she's going to feel violated.

[Tsoul]

raped by a clown does sound cliche'.

[ocelotrevs]

First time I looked through it, I thought she was raped
But after I read it threw I realised that I was basing it on the fact that she was photographed naked. Looking at who the Joker is, no he's a killer, not a rapist. A mass murderer, not a rapist
It's not the Jokers style, he wouldn't have got no kicks from doing that. There is no style there, a raping is pretty bog standard and plain, no class and no style
He didn't rape her

[moebius]

I've asked Denny O'Neil. We'll see what his response is.

And rather than everyone running around saying "oh your so wrong, oh your so wrong," come up with some evidence huh? Ad homenim attacks and appeals to emotion aren't useful. If Moore, O'Neil, and/or Bolland says "no, it didn't happen and it wasn't ambiguous," good enough for me.

Though Ostrander's agreement with this interpretation should credibly bump it up from "fanboy hyper-imagination," which is how the "no's" are painting it (it's all in your heads) to "semi-legitimate industry debate." There is the "Appeal to Authority" rhetorical fallacy, but not every appeal to authority falls under this category. It's reasonable in this case because Ostrander was in the DC bullpen AT THE TIME and involved in the aftermath of the story. He and Dixon are responsible for the interpretation of the Barbara Gordon character throughout the 90s.

Moore wrote one issue with the Batman and the Joker. For those who say "oohhh, it's so out of character for the Joker to do this," sure, no argument there. But Moore only wrote them for one issue. How often has Joker gone around stripping people down, throwing them in cages, then torturing their families? This was pretty high up on the Joker's sadism scale.

No, John Ostrander never wrote a "very special Barbara Gordon rape issue," because (it seems) he didn't like the story and wanted to acknowledge it as little as possible. Expecting to Gail Simone to write another story where a female character is brutalized, raped, or stuffed in a fridge or other household appliance is equally unlikely.

Your mileage on these opinions may very.

[Sean Whitmore]

And rather than everyone running around saying "oh your so wrong, oh your so wrong," come up with some evidence huh?


I think you've got that backwards. That's like asking to prove Santa doesn't exist.

It's not up to the disbelievers to prove that it DIDN'T happen. We already have the beneift of the doubt; it wasn't written. It's up to the believers to show evidence that it DID happen. And John Ostrander's opinion isn't nearly enough evidence for me.


SEAN

[Lubichev]

I read The Killing Joke when I was 13 or 14. I understood what rape was but I never even thought about her being raped until I read this thread. I just saw those pictures as further devices to drive Gordon farther away from sanity. Seeing pictures of your shot-up daughter is bad enough. Rape is rage. The Joker is too cool in his psychopathic ways to do something like that in my opinion. Sure, he'll tell one of his thugs to do something like that (maybe one of those little midget pinhead geeks?) but he wouldn't do it himself.

[mattx110]

i would like to add, that despite being treated as an idiot in titans, dr. light did get a psychotic edge when he died and came back to life as the superpowered photon thingy. he was enough of a crazy bastard to rape someone, though it seemed like he'd be more after green lantern's family than a random person in the satellite just because she was there. maybe in some story i didn't read, he expanded his range of hate to any superhero at all instead of his regular vendettas.


thanks

[Forsaken_One]

The reason that Ostrander's opinion matters, as opposed to, say, Bendis or John Byrne (the latter of whom also believes she was raped) is that Ostrander took the character on directly after Moore. Every Oracle story he wrote since has been with the assumption that she was raped in the Killing Joke. He hasn't addressed that aspect of the story because he hasn't addressed it (not surprising, considering his opinion of the story). Doesn't mean he doesn't believe it.

That "it's all just a bunch of fans getting together and convincing themselves this happened" is patently false, as people at DC at the time of the Killing Joke, who CREATED the Oracle property in response to Moore's story, were writing under this assumption.

So, yeah, Alan Moore's opinion comes first (and quotes/sources would be great). Bolland and O'Neil or Wein (I have O'Neil as the Editor on Amazon, but could easily be wrong) are next. Ostrander and Chuck Dixon, who wrote the character in the late 80s and throughout the 90s, are next. Gail Simone is a little further removed in terms of time. Everyone else is pretty much running off their opinions.No, see opinions don't really matter here. Everyone has an opinion, what matters is what they write down on little sheets of paper and what artists draw on the same sheets of paper and the official stamp that DC puts on it that says "this is in continuity." Past that, when it comes to official continuity, nothing matters. Look, it's all rather simple.

Did Alan Moore write in the comic that Barbara Gordon was raped, or even heavily imply it?

No, he did not.

Did Ostrander write in the comic book he controlled when he controlled Barbara Gordon as a character that she was raped?

No, he did not.

Did Chuck Dixon write that she was raped by the Joker when he was controlling Barbara Gordon in the pages of Birds of Prey?

No, he did not.

Did Gail Simone write that Babs was raped by the Joker in her run with the character during her run on Birds of Prey?

No, she has not.

That's it! It doesn't matter what Ostrander thinks happened, he didn't put it down during his run with the character thus it's not in continuity thus it didn't happen. It matters a wee bit what Gail Simone thinks happened because she currently has control of the character and thus could change it retroactively to be the case. But unless she puts it down in a script, that script is approved by an editor, the artist draws the pictures for that script, the words are put in the little bubbles, DC stamps it as okay and publishes it, and Diamond distributes it all around then all you have is a bunch of opinions that don't matter one damn bit in terms of continuity. You understand?

[CjP]

you know, an interesting side thought of this... what if he did rape her... and she got pregnant? And she was pro-life? Now *that's* an Elseworlds I'd read...

[GremlinClr]

And to add to the point when Light raped Sue, there was the mention of Black Canary was once raped. I would think if Barbara was raped they would have aknowledged it during ID, yet they did not.

[Sean Whitmore]

you know, an interesting side thought of this... what if he did rape her... and she got pregnant? And she was pro-life? Now *that's* an Elseworlds I'd read...


Hoo-boy...DC wouldn't let Swamp Thing talk to Jesus, wouldn't let Constantine talk about school shootings, and wouldn't let Superbaby crawl into an oven. You think they'd let THAT story pass? :D


SEAN

[Frank]

Gordon was deffinitly raped, though. Caligula-style by The Joker!

[moebius]

That's it! It doesn't matter what Ostrander thinks happened, he didn't put it down during his run with the character thus it's not in continuity thus it didn't happen. It matters a wee bit what Gail Simone thinks happened because she currently has control of the character and thus could change it retroactively to be the case. But unless she puts it down in a script, that script is approved by an editor, the artist draws the pictures for that script, the words are put in the little bubbles, DC stamps it as okay and publishes it, and Diamond distributes it all around then all you have is a bunch of opinions that don't matter one damn bit in terms of continuity. You understand?



Your original argument was that this is just fanboy imagination. You are objectively wrong. Writers at DC at the time hold an opinion that Barbara Gordon was raped. So it's more than a "fanboy" argument.

Moore wrote a story. The events were ambiguous. Sufficiently ambiguous that we can have a debate over what was in those pictures and what the writer's intent was.

Arguments:
1. It's out of character for the Joker: It was out of character for Dr. Light, too. The Joker never used rape (implied or otherwise) before the story, but until the Killing Joke he also never thrown someone naked into a cage and tried to drive them insane with pictures of their naked, bleeding family member. Moore's take on the Joker was HIS take on the Joker, and was at the very high end on the "sadistic" scale.
2. Moore has always been explicit with his rape scenes (and there are a LOT of them): Moore has also never worked with a property as financially important as Batman, with a movie on the way (for potential consequences, see: Nick Fury).
3. They never referenced the rape again: They have never mentioned Apollo's rape in the Authority. The word "rape" has never been uttered; it's never even been implied since the issue where it ocurred. Does that mean it didn't happen?
4. We dont' see it: Did you really expect to? We also don't see Apollo raped. It is only strongly implied.
5. It's not strongly implied at all: This is a much better argument. Unlike the Authority story, there are no "belt buckle" moments in the Killing Joke. Just a series of strategically obscured photos. That leaves it entirely up to the reader's interpretation of the characters and the situation.

Ostrander's opinion does indeed matter more than yours or mine. He was closer to the property at the time than either of us and will have better first hand knowledge of events and intent. In my estimation, if Denny O'Neil says "no, that's just John's opinion, here's what really happened. There is no way it was ambiguous," I'd accept that as trumping. If you can pull up a Moore quote or a Bolland quote saying 1) it happened, 2) it didn't happen or 3) it was ambiguous, intentionally or unintentionally, that would also be great. Gail Simone's opinion would be valuable, maybe, but I prefer to get people who were there.

I've sent letters to John Ostrander, Chuck Dixon, and Denny O'Neil asking for their takes on the story. If I can get Bolland or Moore's contact info, I'll ask them too. But resorting to cheap shots is a waste of space.

[Alan2099]

So you're argument is that somebody that had no involvement with the story thinks that they might have been raped, but they've never made it in continuity?

Sounds rather flimsy to me.

As for the naked though a funhosue thing, while it may have been a bit nasty, it was still very Joker. he was trying to twist the guy into the breaking point by runninjg him though a fun house and a freakshow naked.

See the circus, funhouse, clown thing there?

[Sean Whitmore]

Your original argument was that this is just fanboy imagination. You are objectively wrong. Writers at DC at the time hold an opinion that Barbara Gordon was raped. So it's more than a "fanboy" argument.


It's really not, since those writers were giving their opinions as fans.


1. It's out of character for the Joker: It was out of character for Dr. Light, too.


How is it out of character for Dr. Light? Light is just your basic criminal prick who is known to hold vendettas. Doesn't take a stretch to imagine he could resort to rape.

Joker considers himself a genius and an artist. Rape would be pedestrian and boring to him.


The Joker never used rape (implied or otherwise) before the story, but until the Killing Joke he also never thrown someone naked into a cage and tried to drive them insane with pictures of their naked, bleeding family member. Moore's take on the Joker was HIS take on the Joker, and was at the very high end on the "sadistic" scale.


We're not saying Joker isn't sadistic enough to rape, we're saying he's too imaginative for it. Doing what he did to Gordon is a trippy, insane, "Joker" kinda thing to do. Rape is not.


Moore has also never worked with a property as financially important as Batman, with a movie on the way (for potential consequences, see: Nick Fury).


Which is exactly why DC would never stand for even the POSSIBILITY of rape. Unless you think Moore snuck it past all the editors, they read it and rape never even occured to them.


3. They never referenced the rape again: They have never mentioned Apollo's rape in the Authority. The word "rape" has never been uttered; it's never even been implied since the issue where it ocurred. Does that mean it didn't happen?


To be fair, Authority hasn't been around for 20-something years. If it survives, you don't think it's ever gonna come up again?


Ostrander's opinion does indeed matter more than yours or mine. He was closer to the property at the time than either of us and will have better first hand knowledge of events and intent.


But he did nothing with it. If Stan Lee turned around and said, "it was always my intent that Peter Parker was of the Jewish faith", does his opinion mean more than the guy currently writing Spider-Man comics? No.



SEAN

[moebius]

My argument, as it stands, is:

1. The actual sequence is ambiguous; and
2. Members of the DC staff (at the time) with a relationship to the property interpreted the story in that fashion.

My personal take on it is that it's ambiguous, but that it's an interesting question from a historical standpoint and I'm willing to play devil's advocate, largely because many of the "no, it couldn't happen" people are arguing from emotion, not facts, which has annoyed me enough to go into historian mode and keep arguing.

The best standards of evidence, from my perspective:
1. Moore;
2. followed by people who worked on the book (Bolland, O'Neill);
3) followed by members of the Bat Office/DC staff working on Bat-characters at the time (ie Ostrander, Dixon);
4) followed by people who have worked on the character since and/or have a deep understanding of the history (ie Simone);
5) followed by everybody else (ie you or I).

At this point, no one has produced a definitive statement from 1 or 2 on what happened. Just a lot of opinions from 5 based on the ambiguous art from the actual book and past or future interpretations of the character (which do not MATTER...that's why they're interpretations. Remember when Batman used to use a gun?), and one opinion from 3 (who may be biased).

Do we ever see Barbara Gordon get raped? No. Can we account for everything that happened while she was with the Joker? No (hence the ambiguity). Does never talking about an event after the fact mean it never happened? No (see the Authority, or Batman's gun usage in the Golden Age). All we have are the photos.

[Sean Whitmore]

many of the "no, it couldn't happen" people are arguing from emotion, not facts,


It's emotion that (a) it wasn't written, and (b) it isn't likely to have happened, both in terms of the DCU and the real life world of publishing?


The best standards of evidence, from my perspective:
1. Moore;
2. followed by people who worked on the book (Bolland, O'Neill);


And you really do have to stop there. Because the opinion of anyone else is no more weighty than mine or yours. Not unless that person is, say, Paul Levitz, and he states incontrovertibly that the rape happened.


SEAN

[moebius]

But he did nothing with it. If Stan Lee turned around and said, "it was always my intent that Peter Parker was of the Jewish faith", does his opinion mean more than the guy currently writing Spider-Man comics? No.

But they aren't talking as fans. They're talking as professionals and creators. Same company, same characters.

If Spider-Man's religion has never been mentioned (and this is a good example, I think) it would certainly sit somewhere below "canon," but somewhere above "opinion." If no one's going to contradict Lee, who created the guy, then yeah, that holds more weight than if you or I say he's Anglican.

From my perspective, Moore left it ambiguous, but you can't rule something out out of hand. If Ostrander and/or Dixon come along and say "yeah, we think she was raped, but we didn't like that so forget about it" and Moore never contradicts them, then that's in the same nebulous area above opinion but below canon until someone codifies it one way or the other.

And I find Batman's gun usage in the Golden Age interesting, btw. Nice example of how editorial can just forget about something they didn't like.

[Sean Whitmore]

And I find Batman's gun usage in the Golden Age interesting, btw. Nice example of how editorial can just forget about something they didn't like.


Well, to be fair, that was actively and explicity retconned after Crisis. Same as his living in New York, killing people and...y'know...operating in 1939. ;)


SEAN

[moebius]

It's emotion that (a) it wasn't written, and (b) it isn't likely to have happened, both in terms of the DCU and the real life world of publishing?

No, it's emotion to say: "It didn't happen because I find the idea of it disgusting!" It's an ad hominem attack to say "only a sick fanboy would dream up something like that!" It's mostly just spurious logic to say "the Joker would never do that! That's not in character!" from someone who hasn't published a Joker story for Time Warner or DC and/or doesn't own the property.

That it "wasn't explicit" is the issue. It's not definitively shown that it happened. It's not definitively shown that it didn't. We definitively know that Barbara Gordon is shot and paralyzed, beaten and photographed in the nude, because these things are shown to us.

It's never been definitively established after the fact in a printed work that it didn't happen, or that it did (Black Canary: "Did he..." Oracle: "No, no, he doesn't work like that..." would be a good example of definitive, or at least highly suggestive one way or the other. A "belt buckle" moment, so to speak). There have been no definitive statements (to our knowledge) from people who worked on the book.

That leaves it open to interpretation. Both an answer of "yes" and "no" in this case are within the realm of logical possibility for this situation between two fictional characters, whose personalities are themselves open to interpretation (for ex., Adam West vs. Michael Keaton).

[OverMaster]

Much like the Joker's origin in that very same story, I always thought the thing could be interpreted one way or another: the rape happened or didn't happen, but that was left to your imagination.

However, there is one thing that always led me to think Joker didn't rape Babs.

Harvey Bullock's dialogue to Batman.

"Well, we think he... took photos of her. Quite sick, huh?".

He doesn't mention rape, only the photos. If Babs was raped, then the photos would have taken a backseat to the rape itself in Bullock's declaration to Batman. Not to mention I think Harvey would have been a LOT angrier then. If the sickest thing Bullock could find about the whole scene was how Joker took photos of Barbara, I think odds are there was no rape, and the police obviously didn't find traces of it.

That, and I like to think Joker has more class than that. In a way, and according to his sick sense of humor, not raping Babs could have been yet another "funny" insult to her... "I didn't like you enough to actually touch you, Toots. You're below my level".

[bfrank]

Except he has explicitly said that he believes she was raped. Did you miss his quote? I'll repeat it, just in case it didn't get carried over from the other thread:

"I tend not to badmouth other creators or their creations in public but I will say neither Kim Yale nor I were ever fans of the Killing Joke and some of that came out in our ORACLE: YEAR ONE story (which was the last thing we ever wrote together). Short version -- yes, I think she was raped. She was certainly beaten -- the art makes that plain. And the cover has the Joker taking photos from behind a camera; given the story and the only time that happens, the implication is that the reader is Barbara.

I have a TON of respect for Alan Moore but this was Never my favorite story of his. Not by a long shot. Nuff said."

Link: http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/ostrander/?read=4644

The reason that Ostrander's opinion matters, as opposed to, say, Bendis or John Byrne (the latter of whom also believes she was raped) is that Ostrander took the character on directly after Moore. Every Oracle story he wrote since has been with the assumption that she was raped in the Killing Joke. He hasn't addressed that aspect of the story because he hasn't addressed it (not surprising, considering his opinion of the story). Doesn't mean he doesn't believe it.

That "it's all just a bunch of fans getting together and convincing themselves this happened" is patently false, as people at DC at the time of the Killing Joke, who CREATED the Oracle property in response to Moore's story, were writing under this assumption.

So, yeah, Alan Moore's opinion comes first (and quotes/sources would be great). Bolland and O'Neil or Wein (I have O'Neil as the Editor on Amazon, but could easily be wrong) are next. Ostrander and Chuck Dixon, who wrote the character in the late 80s and throughout the 90s, are next. Gail Simone is a little further removed in terms of time. Everyone else is pretty much running off their opinions.
Ostrander's opinion was wrong...he was misinformed, nothing less, nothing more...

since the creator of the book has said that she was not raped, i'm gonna stick with that...I don't care of Jesus wrote her after that, she still was not raped...

[IamtheRock3]

I dont see why it would be beneath him

That guy has zero morality, A child killer, mass murder, Spends times toruting people (which pretty Rage filled act), poisoning water


To me Sick guy like that, Forcefillbly a girls naked while she helpless and take picture. I would imagine he rape her


And I imagine it from the story. Dont think it putting my mind in the gutter..because even without the rape the scenes was pretty much in the gutter


I mean aint like where dealing with mother Theresa here.

[moebius]

since the creator of the book has said that she was not raped, i'm gonna stick with that...I don't care of Jesus wrote her after that, she still was not raped...

Do you have a citation or a link?

[Sean Whitmore]

I dont see why it would be beneath him

That guy has zero morality, A child killer, mass murder, Spends times toruting people (which pretty Rage filled act), poisoning water


Morality's got nothing to do with it. Joker thinks he's an artiste. Rape would just be boring and pedestrian to him. It would make him no different than some scumbag in an alley, and he wants to be different from that guy. He's the Clown Prince of Crime.


SEAN

[Geardaddy]

That is completely wrong and I never said anything that should take a person to even think that.

My whole argument is as following:

1- There is no indication in the book that Joker raped Barbara.
2- Nobody has ever mentioned that Barbara got raped in any book whatsoever after The Killing Joke. So rape didn't even happen as a retcon.3- Joker has never raped any man, woman, farm animal or piece of furniture in his entire fictitious career, so you cannot say that rape is something he would do and much less something that is part of his modus operandi.



So, you've ready every book DC has published since The Killing Joke? In order to use #2 as an arguement, you will have had to have read every issue of every title DC has published since then.

There really isn't a right or wrong here. People can debate it either way, and both could make strong arguements for or against it. I think it's left up to the reader to decide if they feel the Joker raped Barbara or not. For me, I got the impression that he did. But hey, that's just me.

[OverMaster]

Morality's got nothing to do with it. Joker thinks he's an artiste. Rape would just be boring and pedestrian to him. It would make him no different than some scumbag in an alley, and he wants to be different from that guy. He's the Clown Prince of Crime.


SEAN

Loved the quote to Carnage and his methods in Spider-Man/Batman: "I'm the Lawrence Olivier of crime... while you are a simple amateur. Heck, you don't even reach Dolph Lundgren's level...".

I think the rape would have been the "too obvious punchline" for the Joker in that case.

[Sean Whitmore]

I think the rape would have been the "too obvious punchline" for the Joker in that case.


That's exactly it. That's the explanation I was looking for and didn't know how to say. Thanks, OverMaster. :D


SEAN

[Charagon]

So, you've ready every book DC has published since The Killing Joke? In order to use #2 as an arguement, you will have had to have read every issue of every title DC has published since then.

The burden of proof doesn't lie with him. To disprove him, you have to find the evidence that he's wrong.

[Forsaken_One]

The reason that Ostrander's opinion matters, as opposed to, say, Bendis or John Byrne (the latter of whom also believes she was raped) is that Ostrander took the character on directly after Moore. Every Oracle story he wrote since has been with the assumption that she was raped in the Killing Joke. He hasn't addressed that aspect of the story because he hasn't addressed it (not surprising, considering his opinion of the story). Doesn't mean he doesn't believe it.

That "it's all just a bunch of fans getting together and convincing themselves this happened" is patently false, as people at DC at the time of the Killing Joke, who CREATED the Oracle property in response to Moore's story, were writing under this assumption.

So, yeah, Alan Moore's opinion comes first (and quotes/sources would be great). Bolland and O'Neil or Wein (I have O'Neil as the Editor on Amazon, but could easily be wrong) are next. Ostrander and Chuck Dixon, who wrote the character in the late 80s and throughout the 90s, are next. Gail Simone is a little further removed in terms of time. Everyone else is pretty much running off their opinions.No, see opinions don't really matter here. You seem to think that the underlying motive of a writer when they're writing something matters for continuity. It doesn't. Everyone has an opinion, what matters is what they write down on little sheets of paper and what artists draw on the same sheets of paper and the official stamp that DC puts on it that says "this is in continuity." Past that, when it comes to official continuity, nothing matters. It's all rather simple:

Did Alan Moore write in the comic that Barbara Gordon was raped, or even heavily imply it?

No, he did not.

Did Ostrander write in the comic book he controlled when he controlled Barbara Gordon as a character that she was raped?

No, he did not.

Did Chuck Dixon write that she was raped by the Joker when he was controlling Barbara Gordon in the pages of Birds of Prey?

No, he did not.

Did Gail Simone write that Babs was raped by the Joker in her run with the character during her run on Birds of Prey?

No, she has not.

That's it! It doesn't matter what Ostrander says he thinks happened, he didn't put it down during his run with the character thus it's not in continuity thus it didn't happen. It matters a wee bit what Gail Simone thinks happened because she currently has control of the character and thus could change it retroactively to be the case. But unless she puts it down in a script, that script is approved by an editor, the artist draws the pictures for that script, the words are put in the little bubbles, DC stamps it as okay and publishes it, and Diamond distributes it all around then all you have is a bunch of opinions that don't matter one damn bit in terms of continuity. You understand?

So unless you can find a point where it's out and out stated, or even heavily implied (I'm thinking Nightwing kinda heavy, not just nudie pictures) that Barbara Gordon was raped by the Joker then in comic book continuity it didn't happen.

[Shane McCarthy]

Well I've certainly never seen it as Barbara being raped.

There's something altogether sickeningly perverted about her degradation through the taking of photos whilst she's at her most vulnerable but I've never once seen even the slightest hint of rape in that scene.

Moore has never shied away from showing or strongly suggesting rape in his work prior to and after KILLING JOKE. And the idea that he would have to hold back on strongly implying the rape due to the property's star power yet they allowed the naked photos, the naked torture of Jim and then his mental torture at having to view the photos later just doesn't hold up.

Of course in the end that's only my opinion ;)

[Apathy Boy]

Much like the Joker's origin in that very same story, I always thought the thing could be interpreted one way or another: the rape happened or didn't happen, but that was left to your imagination.

However, there is one thing that always led me to think Joker didn't rape Babs.

Harvey Bullock's dialogue to Batman.

"Well, we think he... took photos of her. Quite sick, huh?".

He doesn't mention rape, only the photos. If Babs was raped, then the photos would have taken a backseat to the rape itself in Bullock's declaration to Batman. Not to mention I think Harvey would have been a LOT angrier then. If the sickest thing Bullock could find about the whole scene was how Joker took photos of Barbara, I think odds are there was no rape, and the police obviously didn't find traces of it.

That, and I like to think Joker has more class than that. In a way, and according to his sick sense of humor, not raping Babs could have been yet another "funny" insult to her... "I didn't like you enough to actually touch you, Toots. You're below my level".The Bullock quote actually makes me think Barbara was raped. The unusual use of ellipses ("...") in that sentence indicates that Bullock was struggling to think of a delicate way to describe what the Joker had done to Barbara. Why would he have to pause to say "took photos of her" if the Joker had indeed just taken pictures of her? On the other hand, I can see Bullock having to take a moment to come up with "took photos of her" as a euphemism for "rape."

The whole "rape is beneath the Joker" argument strikes me as rather odd. The Joker is a monster. He may talk a good game about being an artist, but when you get right down to it, he's got no objection to doing something as low-brow as beating a teenager to death with a crowbar. The whole point of THE KILLING JOKE was for the Joker to heap as many atrocities as possible on Jim Gordon. I don't see why the Joker would draw the line at rape in that situation.

To me, the strong S&M overtones of Gordon's imprisonment suggests that he had suffered some sexual abuse as well.

(An aside to Shane McCarthy: "Riddle Me That" was a terrific read, even though I don't particularly like Eddie's new look. You got anything else coming out?)

[Donald M.]

The Bullock quote actually makes me think Barbara was raped. The unusual use of ellipses ("...") in that sentence indicates that Bullock was struggling to think of a delicate way to describe what the Joker had done to Barbara. Why would he have to pause to say "took photos of her" if the Joker had indeed just taken pictures of her? On the other hand, I can see Bullock having to take a moment to come up with "took photos of her" as a euphemism for "rape."


Why would Harvey need to pause before saying "took photos of her"? Maybe because stripping a woman naked and taking photos of her after he has shot her in the stomach is exceptionally sick even by the Joker's standards? Since when is Harvey Bullock one to use euphamisms anyway? If someone got raped, he of all people is gonna come out and say they got raped.


The whole "rape is beneath the Joker" argument strikes me as rather odd. The Joker is a monster. He may talk a good game about being an artist, but when you get right down to it, he's got no objection to doing something as low-brow as beating a teenager to death with a crowbar. The whole point of THE KILLING JOKE was for the Joker to heap as many atrocities as possible on Jim Gordon. I don't see why the Joker would draw the line at rape in that situation.


And yet he did. Rape was not even implied. I was an adult the first time I read Killing Joke and rape did not even occur to me before seeing this thread because I was never confused about what exactly Joker did or why he was doing it.


To me, the strong S&M overtones of Gordon's imprisonment suggests that he had suffered some sexual abuse as well.


To me, stripping Gordon naked wasn't about sex, it was about reducing him to the level of an animal as part of the Joker's plan to drive him insane.

[Jkid099]

No, see opinions don't really matter here. You seem to think that the underlying motive of a writer when they're writing something matters for continuity. It doesn't. Everyone has an opinion, what matters is what they write down on little sheets of paper and what artists draw on the same sheets of paper and the official stamp that DC puts on it that says "this is in continuity." Past that, when it comes to official continuity, nothing matters. It's all rather simple:

Did Alan Moore write in the comic that Barbara Gordon was raped, or even heavily imply it?

No, he did not.

Did Ostrander write in the comic book he controlled when he controlled Barbara Gordon as a character that she was raped?

No, he did not.

Did Chuck Dixon write that she was raped by the Joker when he was controlling Barbara Gordon in the pages of Birds of Prey?

No, he did not.

Did Gail Simone write that Babs was raped by the Joker in her run with the character during her run on Birds of Prey?

No, she has not.

That's it! It doesn't matter what Ostrander says he thinks happened, he didn't put it down during his run with the character thus it's not in continuity thus it didn't happen. It matters a wee bit what Gail Simone thinks happened because she currently has control of the character and thus could change it retroactively to be the case. But unless she puts it down in a script, that script is approved by an editor, the artist draws the pictures for that script, the words are put in the little bubbles, DC stamps it as okay and publishes it, and Diamond distributes it all around then all you have is a bunch of opinions that don't matter one damn bit in terms of continuity. You understand?

So unless you can find a point where it's out and out stated, or even heavily implied (I'm thinking Nightwing kinda heavy, not just nudie pictures) that Barbara Gordon was raped by the Joker then in comic book continuity it didn't happen.


He's got a point.

[Perry Holley]

I'm reminded of the conversation between Flash and Pied Piper regarding various supervillains (paraphrased from memory):

Flash: What about the Joker? He's gotta be gay, right?

Pied Piper: Wally, the Joker is a delusional psychotic who lives in his own little reality. I don't think he even has a sexuality.

[Crowley]

No, see opinions don't really matter here. You seem to think that the underlying motive of a writer when they're writing something matters for continuity. It doesn't. Everyone has an opinion, what matters is what they write down on little sheets of paper and what artists draw on the same sheets of paper and the official stamp that DC puts on it that says "this is in continuity." Past that, when it comes to official continuity, nothing matters. It's all rather simple:

Did Alan Moore write in the comic that Barbara Gordon was raped, or even heavily imply it?

No, he did not.

Did Ostrander write in the comic book he controlled when he controlled Barbara Gordon as a character that she was raped?

No, he did not.

Did Chuck Dixon write that she was raped by the Joker when he was controlling Barbara Gordon in the pages of Birds of Prey?

No, he did not.

Did Gail Simone write that Babs was raped by the Joker in her run with the character during her run on Birds of Prey?

No, she has not.

That's it! It doesn't matter what Ostrander says he thinks happened, he didn't put it down during his run with the character thus it's not in continuity thus it didn't happen. It matters a wee bit what Gail Simone thinks happened because she currently has control of the character and thus could change it retroactively to be the case. But unless she puts it down in a script, that script is approved by an editor, the artist draws the pictures for that script, the words are put in the little bubbles, DC stamps it as okay and publishes it, and Diamond distributes it all around then all you have is a bunch of opinions that don't matter one damn bit in terms of continuity. You understand?

So unless you can find a point where it's out and out stated, or even heavily implied (I'm thinking Nightwing kinda heavy, not just nudie pictures) that Barbara Gordon was raped by the Joker then in comic book continuity it didn't happen.

I'm going to disagree here...

Half of what goes on in comics is implied for us to read between the lines. Moore as the writer of the original story has a valid opinion in regards to it.

two reasons it happened in IC and not in Killing Joke:
1. 15 years later
2. the Comics Code Authority is now easily ignored

[Donald M.]

2. the Comics Code Authority is now easily ignored

And since when does the Comics Code Authority have anything to do with what goes on in Mature Reader label, direct market, prestige format books?

Answer: it doesn't. Never has, not even 15 years ago.

It being 15 years ago is a valid point, but I think Moore could have snuck in some oblique clue were that his intention. I see no such clue and it I think it takes a lot of stretching and inferrence to find one, like that one guy who says that some elipses in a Harvey Bullock word balloon are proof. He was pausing, see, to find a good euphamism for rape, and "Taking pictures" is what he came up with, the fact that the Joker actually did take pictures of her notwithstanding.

[Gilda Dent]

My opinion? It's just like what was in the box at the end of 'Se7en', or the briefcase in 'Pulp Fiction'... it's left to the reader to draw thier own conclusions. Many valid points were brought up on both sides... which reinforces the notion that it was intentionally ambiguous.

Neither of these is really parallel. In Pulp Fiction, the contents of the suitcase are unknown even to the writer, Tarantino, because it's irrelevant to the story what it is, as long as everybody wants it. It's a classic MacGuffin.

In Se7en, I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that Tracy's head is in the box at the end.

But he did nothing with it. If Stan Lee turned around and said, "it was always my intent that Peter Parker was of the Jewish faith", does his opinion mean more than the guy currently writing Spider-Man comics? No.

But things can be included as a part of a character that help to shape a character's behavior even if those things are never explicitly shown on panel. Jack Kirby considered Ben Grimm to be Jewish. Debates cropped up a few years ago about whether he'd always been Jewish, based on a special Christmas issue in which he appears to have no knowledge of the Jewish faith. If he's portrayed as Jewish in one book, but not in another, how do we decide which is the truth and which is the abberation? The best answer to me seems to be the original intent of the creator, which in this case would be Kirby.

Another example. On the tv show Law and Order, when Jack McCoy was first introduced, it was established that he'd had a series of affairs with female assistants. It was never stated on-screen that McCoy was sleeping with Claire Kincaid, and actress Jill Hennesy in interviews said they weren't, but some fans claimed to have seen something subtle in the dialog and the way that the two interacted that implied a romantic relationship. Dick Wolfe, at the end of the run, revealed that yes, they were lovers, and that's how they'd been written, but they hadn't told Hennesy because they wanted it to be a subtle subtext, not out on the surface. Even at the end of that run, it's left up to the viewer to decipher whether Claire dies in the car accident, based on one or two subtle clues dropped in the next season. It's never directly stated that she's dead, never directly revealed to the viewer, but the writers damn well know the answer and write the characters based on that knowledge.

There are countless examples of this. Blade Runner. The Conversation. The evidence may be deliberately obscure, but there often is a definitive answer, and answer that informs how the character is written or portrayed, that affects how one reacts to the character, even if the answers to such questions aren't made explicit. Not being told in frame whether Deckard is a replicant, or whether there's a bug in the apartment makes those movies a deeper experience. At the same time, knowing the answer to these questions enables the writer to add a subtle layer of subtext to the character or plot that affects how they are viewed, even if the subtext isn't concsiously noticed by the reader/viewer.

Meryl Streep has said that one of her acting techniques is that she finds a hidden secret that each of her characters possesses, and uses that to inform her portrayal, without telling anyone what that secret is, including the other actors, director, or writer. In Kramer vs. Kramer, the secret is that Mrs. Kramer never really loved her husband. That knowledge influnces her performance in subtle ways that the other actors might sense and respond to , and subsequently the audience.

For such a technique to work, to be effective, the writer needs to know the answer, even if that answer is never directly revealed to the audience. I'm sure that Gail has decided in her mind whether Barbara was raped, and that subtly influences her characterization, but it isn't necessary for her to tell us directly. Not knowing for sure makes for a deeper reading experience.

I have no doubt Alan knows for sure whether she was raped, and I don't really want to know his answer.

For the record, I don't see any evidence in the story itself that she was raped, and in the absense of such evidence, assuming she was is unwarranted.

Gilda

[SpaceBooger]

look, we dont know the jokers past... and that drives us (and the bat characters) mad
the joker (my take) never let the pictures insinuate but not say rape or not... and that my friends would easily drive gordon and us mad

[Forsaken_One]

But things can be included as a part of a character that help to shape a character's behavior even if those things are never explicitly shown on panel. Jack Kirby considered Ben Grimm to be Jewish. Debates cropped up a few years ago about whether he'd always been Jewish, based on a special Christmas issue in which he appears to have no knowledge of the Jewish faith. If he's portrayed as Jewish in one book, but not in another, how do we decide which is the truth and which is the abberation? The best answer to me seems to be the original intent of the creator, which in this case would be Kirby.The best answer to me on that one wouldn't be the creator but rather the current writer, as the current writer has the powr to make him Jewish, Christian, Shinto, or whatever. Once a creator gives up the reigns on their character anything they haven't mentioned explicitly doesn't really have meaning; if Kirby wanted him to be Jewish but didn't every say it or have pictures of it in the comic and the next guy made him Christian, then he is, for the purposes of MU continuity, Christian. If it's never said or heavily implied then it didn't happen until the current writer, whoever that may be, says it.

I think that applies to everything from religion to possible rape sequences to whether or not someone did drugs as a teenager. The intent behind something is meaningless to continuity, it's the books themselves that matter.

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's also an Alan Moore book that has the Joker torturing a naked Jim Gordon in a cage. Certainly the writer is capable of writing rape scenes (and has done so multiple times; see Watchmen, and that's 1986 for you, and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen v. 2).

Why not just ask him?

No need. Moore has himself said, many times, that Barbara was not raped. He had considered having the Joker rape Jim Gordon, but that was nixed by the editors.

[The Joker]

After re-reading "The Killing Joke" last night, I have to say that the underline scenario that The Joker raped Barbara can easily be interpreted, but I believe that The Joker did no such thing.
The photos of Barbara were more of an act of humiliation, rather than rape. To ultimately drive Gordon mad. Which he very nearly succeeded in doing.

I can see why many think that it's "implied", or "insinuated" in some fashion or another, but I think the storys goal was to show how sick of an indivdual The Joker really is (which doesnt necessarily include the henious act of rape). To paralyze a young woman, make jokes about it, and then take nude photos of her while she lies in a pool of her own blood. All in the hope, the idea to drive Gordon mad. Is actually enough to make the crime easily one of The Joker's worst.
Sure the rape of Barbara would make the crime that much more intolarable, but with everything that happened in the story, it's honestly not needed.

Like I said, I can see why some think it's implied in the story. But personally, and IMHO, I think it's more of an sick act (a very sick act really) of The Joker humiliating Barbara, rather than a sick act of rape.
Moore has written rape before, but I personally dont think it actually happened in this particular story.

[Apathy Boy]

Why would Harvey need to pause before saying "took photos of her"? Maybe because stripping a woman naked and taking photos of her after he has shot her in the stomach is exceptionally sick even by the Joker's standards? Since when is Harvey Bullock one to use euphamisms anyway? If someone got raped, he of all people is gonna come out and say they got raped.That's a valid interpretation. I just thought that conversation sounded rather un-Bullock-like.

Regarding your euphemism criticism, I thought Moore might've been playing Bullock against type to show how much the character had been affected. (Sort of like the "Joker isn't laughing any more" line from SWAMP THING.)

And yet he did. Rape was not even implied. I was an adult the first time I read Killing Joke and rape did not even occur to me before seeing this thread because I was never confused about what exactly Joker did or why he was doing it.That's a less compelling argument. Rape wasn't even implied because it never occurred to you? But how do you account for the fact that the thought did occur to a good chunk of the people on this thread? These people must've been picking up on something, no?

To clarify: I agree with Forsaken One that if rape hasn't been explicitly stated, it never happened. But the luridness of the cover and the scenes with Barbara and Jim give the Joker the feel of a sexual predator. Alan Moore may not have intended for Barbara to have been raped, but he sure as hell wanted to cast some doubt in our minds.

To me, stripping Gordon naked wasn't about sex, it was about reducing him to the level of an animal as part of the Joker's plan to drive him insane.Also a valid interpretation.

[Donald M.]

Several people have pointed out that Alan Moore says there was no rape, and Gail Simone over on her board says there was no rape, so, as of the moment at least, there was no rape.

Still, I think there are worse things than rape, and what the Joker did to Barbara in The Killing Joke is one of them. After what he did to her, raping her would have been beside the point.

[moebius]

Several people have pointed out that Alan Moore says there was no rape, and Gail Simone over on her board says there was no rape, so, as of the moment at least, there was no rape.

Still, I think there are worse things than rape, and what the Joker did to Barbara in The Killing Joke is one of them. After what he did to her, raping her would have been beside the point.

Links to either would be welcomed (especially the first).

[JeffreyWKramer]

Links to either would be welcomed (especially the first).

Check old issues of the COMICS JOURNAL. I specifically recall Moore stating this in an interview in that publication, ages ago. It was the same interview in which he stated something along the lines of "It occurs to me now that perhaps a superhero comic titled VIGILANTE was not the best venue in which I might have tried to do serious stories about important social issues."

Any old-timers able to back me up on this?

[KameTen]

The Joker has never registered to me as being sexual in all the years that I've been a comic book fan. Even with Harley Quinn in the picture, causing chaos and murder and making Batman see his joke have always taken up his priorities more than having sex. It could be that the same chaos and murder that he enjoys serves as his sexual substitute, but thats a little bit too creepy for my tastes :o

[JeffreyWKramer]

The Joker has never registered to me as being sexual in all the years that I've been a comic book fan.
Years ago some FLASH writer (Messner-Loebs? Early Waid) commented the same in-story about the Joker, in a discussion between Wally and the Pied Piper. It was around the time Piper came out as gay, and Wally made some comment about whether the Joker was gay; Piper's response was that he didn't think the Joker was human enough to have a sexuality.

Of course, there have also been portrayals of the Joker as being exaggeratedly effeminate (Morrison's ARKHAM ASYLUM GN and an old Giffen-era JUSTICE LEAGUE ANNUAL with Willingham art are two which leap to mind), which some have taken to suggest the Joker is gay, not to mention suggestions of homoerotic aspects to the Joker's fixation on Batman, but there's nothing directly textual there - sheer interpretation.

Me, I like the whole "he's so insane that sexuality is more or less a moot point" idea in the case of the Joker. It isn't particularly realistic, but neither is anything else about the Joker's insanity, which doesn't reflect any real-world mental illness condition.

[KameTen]

I just thought that the Joker was using mind games against Batman. Then again, in the Arkham Asylum graphic novel, Batman and every one of his villians were really out of character the entire time he was there, so it might all be one massive mind screw. But at least they aren't trying to push that "super-sanity" theory that was in the Arkham Asylum. Takes away all that accountablity that writers don't want to put on him but we know its there.

EDIT:
I think that the Joker is just as sane as Batman is, or sane enough to understand what he is doing and how it affects others.

[Donald M.]

EDIT:
I think that the Joker is just as sane as Batman is, or sane enough to understand what he is doing and how it affects others.

Perhaps, but except for Batman and a few other central figures on whom he's fixated, he seems to have a rather short memory. In his appearance in Birds of Prey, Joker had no idea who Barbara was and could only guess that it was him who put her in the wheelchair.

[Donald M.]

Links to either would be welcomed (especially the first).

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=1716205&postcount=17

I have no link to Alan Moore specifically stating there was no rape, but he has said it, people are not making it up.

[KameTen]

Perhaps, but except for Batman and a few other central figures on whom he's fixated, he seems to have a rather short memory. In his appearance in Birds of Prey, Joker had no idea who Barbara was and could only guess that it was him who put her in the wheelchair.

But didn't he know that another Robin had replaced the other when he encountered them? It just might be more mind-games on his part.

[Dr. Necessiter]

All of the posts that say the Joker is above rape are entirely wrong.

Criminals kill and rob and such. The joker kills and robs and such, only with a bit of personal style. The joker may be above a straight up rape, but he's probably not above raping a girl in a room full of dancing midgets and monkeys wearing ballerina outfits while smoking comically oversized cigars. The joker may not just straight up sodomize ya, but he'd probably sodomize you with a tremendous, barbed dildo that shoots a little flag out its tip which says "banged"...or something...

I thought the killing joke was sort of a shot against the glamorous, theme-ridden concept of the super villian. In shooting and viscerally humiliating Babs, the Joker isn't a romantic rake. He's a straight up thug with a general gimmick. I kind of figured that the overall point of the story was to show Batman and Joker for what they really are, twin psychotics projecting the theatrical onto the savage.

If Babs WAS raped, and I don't know anymore than anyone else on these boards, then it certainly does make the final images of the story...Batman and Joker having a good laugh together...really, freaking creepy.

[Donald M.]

But didn't he know that another Robin had replaced the other when he encountered them? It just might be more mind-games on his part.

When he killed Jason Todd, he didn't seem to realize that he wasn't the same Robin as Dick Grayson. Killing Robin is something he defininately remembers though. When he first encountered Tim Drake, rather than figure out it was a new kid in the costume, he assumed Robin had somehow come back from the dead.

[Donald M.]

Edit: double post

[Donald M.]

All of the posts that say the Joker is above rape are entirely wrong.

Criminals kill and rob and such. The joker kills and robs and such, only with a bit of personal style. The joker may be above a straight up rape, but he's probably not above raping a girl in a room full of dancing midgets and monkeys wearing ballerina outfits while smoking comically oversized cigars. The joker may not just straight up sodomize ya, but he'd probably sodomize you with a tremendous, barbed dildo that shoots a little flag out its tip which says "banged"...or something...

I thought the killing joke was sort of a shot against the glamorous, theme-ridden concept of the super villian. In shooting and viscerally humiliating Babs, the Joker isn't a romantic rake. He's a straight up thug with a general gimmick. I kind of figured that the overall point of the story was to show Batman and Joker for what they really are, twin psychotics projecting the theatrical onto the savage.

If Babs WAS raped, and I don't know anymore than anyone else on these boards, then it certainly does make the final images of the story...Batman and Joker having a good laugh together...really, freaking creepy.

Not all criminals, not even all violent criminals, are rapists.

Anyway, what the Joker may or may not be capable of is moot. He's a fictional character under the control of writers and editors, not an indendent entity capable of choosing his own actions. If they say (or at least imply) that he's above rape or that rape would never occur to him, then it is so.

[KameTen]

When he killed Jason Todd, he didn't seem to realize that he wasn't the same Robin as Dick Grayson. Killing Robin is something he defininately remembers though. When he first encountered Tim Drake, rather than figure out it was a new kid in the costume, he assumed Robin had somehow come back from the dead.

Its not like it hasn't happened before ;)

[Bat-Mite]

So, you've ready every book DC has published since The Killing Joke?

Yes. I am computron the living fanboy, and you shall never defeat me, Captain Faulty Logic.

The burden of proof doesn't lie with him. To disprove him, you have to find the evidence that he's wrong.

Thank you.

[Alan2099]

Me, I just can't see it, and I have a pretty perverted mind. it would be more like to Joker to paint "Joker WuZ here" on her privates with her own blood than toa ctually rape her.

I can picture Joker doing lots of crazy things to her. I can picture him stripping her and pushing her down the street in a bay carriage. I can picture him using her blood to give her clown make-up. I can picture him posing her to reianct the scenes from some of the Top movies of all time, but rape I just can't see him doing.

[moebius]

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=1716205&postcount=17

I have no link to Alan Moore specifically stating there was no rape, but he has said it, people are not making it up.

Thank you, sir. That's an interesting quote by Simone...sort of a "by the spirit of the law, if not the letter" conclusion that effectively splits the difference.

As for the Moore quote, it's not a matter of believing the poster, but proper citation of sources and trackback, proper research method, and using it to add to or end the debate. Facts that are commonly known (the Declaration of Independance was signed in 1776, the X-Men are mutants) do not need to be cited. In general, everything else does.

[JeffreyWKramer]

As for the Moore quote, it's not a matter of believing the poster, but proper citation of sources and trackback, proper research method, and using it to add to or end the debate. Facts that are commonly known (the Declaration of Independance was signed in 1776, the X-Men are mutants) do not need to be cited. In general, everything else does.

In general, I agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't currently have the relevant magazines, and I haven't been able to locate a relevant online link.

[Thrice]

Um if you were trying to drive someone insane such as the joker was trying to do to gordan what better way to start things off then raping his daughter in front of him.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Um if you were trying to drive someone insane such as the joker was trying to do to gordan what better way to start things off then raping his daughter in front of him.

Shooting her, stripping her and taking pics and showing the pics is a pretty good start.

While your point might be relevant to what the Joker *could* have done toward his goal of driving Gordon nuts, it isn't what actually happened in the book.

[Thrice]

You cant actually proved what happen in the book one way or another. Perhaps the Joker didnot rape her we certainly didnot see anything to that effect. But was it implied. I certainly thought it was implied. Would they have outright mention it back then. No it was the age of the comic code.

[Simon Garth]

The difference between Identity Crisis and The Killing Joke is that one was a superb Batman story and the other was an appallingly incompetently plotted miniseries with twists that utterly defied credibility and covers that utterly defied anatomy.


I was with you up to the word "miniseries". I have an (almost) opposite view to you (I haven't read IC, and no interest in it), but I have read Killing Joke, and I thought it was utterly pitiful - probably the worst work of Moore's that I had read. Batman throughout was totally unbelievable, and the idea that he would laugh at Joker's stupid joke at the end was ridiculous.

On the rape issue - it's ambiguous - it would have been extremely difficult to hint any stronger in a DC comic of the time, but the "shoot her then show naked pictures to the father" never rang true to me (but then, none of the book did).

You can add another one to the Moore rape count though - Hyde rapes Invisible Man in LoEG

[Donald M.]

You cant actually proved what happen in the book one way or another. Perhaps the Joker didnot rape her we certainly didnot see anything to that effect. But was it implied. I certainly thought it was implied. Would they have outright mention it back then. No it was the age of the comic code.

Once again, what does the comics code have to do with it?

This book was not on newsstands.

[Alan2099]

I'm not even seeing how it was implied. Joker shoots her, strips her naked, and takes pictures of it. People were upset, as people are liekly to be when you shwo them pictures of a woman whos' been stripped and is dying froma gunshot wound.

Joker stripped Gordon too. Why isn't anyone arguing that he raped Gordon? That would do more to drive the guy insane.

[Bat-Mite]

I certainly thought it was implied.

Implication would involve a clue pointing out what might have happened. There is no such clue in the entire book. It wasn't even implied.

Once again, what does the comics code have to do with it?


The book was not approved by the CCA in the first place.

it would have been extremely difficult to hint any stronger in a DC comic of the time

Alan Moore himself wrote non ambiguous rape scenes in DC comics at the time, so the whole CCA and "Oh no! You couldn't do that at the time" doesn't fly at all.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Would they have outright mention it back then. No it was the age of the comic code.

Yet Moore had already written about rape and sexual abuse in SWAMP THING by this time.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

[Thrice]

It was implied because the Joker striped her naked. Usually when someone is off there rocker strip someone else it isnt to paint a portray of them.

[west3man]

There are some evil mo' fo's 'round heah. Just evil enough for this to be my first and last response in what otherwise might've been a worthwhile thread.

[OverMaster]

It was implied because the Joker striped her naked. Usually when someone is off there rocker strip someone else it isnt to paint a portray of them.

But you are using logics here (even if they are criminal logics). The Joker doesn't go with logics. He is the kind of people who could find shooting someone, stripping her naked, taking photos *and* then *not* raping her funny, while an anxious thug would go for the sex.

The Joker thinks of himself as an "artist of comedy". And as grotesque as his "artwork" is, he doesn't go for the easy, obvious way with it.

[greenhornetsting]

This brings back memories.....when this book first came out, I explained the plot to friends by saying the Joker shot and then raped her. My impression was that it was implied heavily enough that anyone would conclude that. Given what was editorially permissable in a mainstream comic at the time, the way that scene was portrayed was as close as a writer could realistically get to saying she was raped. But when my friends read it, they disagreed completely with my characterization.

On page 12, (one page before she gets shot), Barbara Gordon tells her Dad she found the missing Catwoman photo album he said was missing. I got the feeling that line was in there to make us think the Commish has such a thing for Catwoman that he keeps her photo album hidden for 'personal enjoyment'. That wouldn't really make any sense, given Gordon's age and what we know of his character (and considering how tired he always is), but it seemed to me that's what Moore was enjoying hinting at (not showing or stating, just hinting)

I think it's the same with the attack on Barbara. He ends page 13 with the Joker undressing her. If his point was to take pictures, why wasn't the Joker holding the camera in his hand during those panels? Moore's scripts are heavily detailed, so what the Joker was holding was sure to have been spelled out. The reason there's no camera is because Moore wants you to think he's going to rape her. If he'd been holding the camera, you'd think the Joker's aim was picture taking, and without the camera you think rape. Since the Joker is taking pictures on the cover, the use of the camera is not exactly a surprise that Moore would need to hold back on revealing til later in the story.

So I think Moore wanted the reader - at that point in the story - to think she was getting raped. Whether she "was" raped or not wasn't the point. What was the point is for him was toosee how much he can get away with; how much artistic freedom DC would let him have the project.

I think what others have said - that we should assume the Commish got assaulted just as much as Barbara is a fair point. From my point of view, however, given the realities of what you could get away with in a comic at the time, the Commish nudity was just there to take the hex off of the Barbara scene. The Commish is naked more than Barbara is, so that makes it acceptable to leave in the scene of Barbara being attacked.

So anyway, I think Moore intentionally left it vague, but went out of his way to make the reader suspect it. But I don't think it's at all important to Alan Moore whether it happened or not.

[Alan2099]

It was implied because the Joker striped her naked. Usually when someone is off there rocker strip someone else it isnt to paint a portray of them.
Then how come we aren't arguing on whether or not he raped the Comishoner?

Besides, it would be quite in character for Joker to strip somebody and then paint a portrait of them. Especially if they were wallowing around in pain from a gunshot wound.