Should Batman Kill the Joker?

- - - - - - - - - - - Ѡ - - - - - - - - - -

Justice: a topic of discussion that has generated debate amongst people since the origins of humanity. What is it, and who decides what true justice is? Some say vengeance is justice. Others define justice based on a common agreement between a majority of people which they call the law. Laws were written to form a civilized society. They were created to seclude those who mean harm and have no respect for other humans. These laws, however, give us no rights; rather, they remind us of them. The most important of these, written down in the Constitution of the United States, is the right to life. Our right to live is unconditional, and should always be respected. In the movie The Dark Knight (2008), directed by Christopher Nolan, the topic of justice is discussed, and a person’s right to life questioned. The feud between Batman and the Joker is a topic that generates further discussion, not only on the literal sense but also in the symbolic. How does Batman killing the Joker apply to a real-life situation? According to Mark D. White from The Boston Globe, “While there are good reasons to kill the Joker… there are also good reasons not to kill him, based on what killing would mean about Batman and his motives, mission, and character.” Based on the philosophy of deontology, which states that although the Joker may be evil, he is still human and deserving of the minimum level of respect and humanity, Batman should not kill the Joker because he is human as well, our right to life is unconditional and is not to be taken away by anybody; and, by doing so, Batman would lower himself down to the level of a criminal.

We are all human; therefore, there is a minimum level of respect that all of us should give to and receive from one another. Perhaps the Joker is an evil man who truly deserves to die. Perhaps he is a psychopath, suffering from mental issues. However, who is the Batman to decide whether he lives or dies? It is perhaps Arnold P. Goldstein, author of Violence in America, who best explains why people might argue on whether killing the Joker is better, “The more we are able to view someone as something less than human, the more readily aggression toward that person is possible.  Racial or religious stereotyping, the view of the enemy in wartime, are each good examples of our tendency to give such persons a demeaning label or name, and via such dehumanizing enable ourselves to hurt them” (Us vs. Them, par. 15). Often, as a result of an individual’s actions, we tend to see them as less than human. This causes us to react hostile toward that individual to the point that we may end up contradicting ourselves while trying to seek justice. For example, when a convict is sentenced to death for murder, we perform the same act on him as the one for which we are punishing him/her for. This may sound ironic, and it is. Another irony surrounding the topic of the death penalty is that laws are supposed to be designed to impose order in society; yet, the death penalty is a legal practice which actually generates much controversy and protests from members of the community and American society. There are those who may argue that a person who loses respect for another’s life (like the Joker) deserves the penalty of death. While this may be true in theory, putting it to practice requires that another person, as human as the perpetrator himself, make the voluntary decision to execute him; whether he is the judge who orders the sentence or the executioner who carries it out, and be put in the same position as the perpetrator’s. Because we are all human, we should give the least level of respect to others, unconditionally, as long as others do not represent an immediate threat to our existence.

Just because the death sentence is carried officially through a legal process does not mean that the act itself is morally right. One’s right to life is unconditional and cannot be taken away. When it comes to governing, there are several factors that may influence a government’s decision to legalize the death penalty. Unfortunately, fraud, corruption, and economic issues often determine whether a person lives or dies, whether innocent or guilty. Sadly, there are people who justify the death penalty stating that it is more expensive to maintain a prisoner than to execute him. Regardless of personal points of view, one’s life is, after all, one’s own. Therefore, no person or legal authority is in a position to determine whether one lives or dies.

Finally, there is another aspect of killing the Joker that would not be favorable to Batman. That is, if he kills the Joker, he would not be the symbol of justice he stands for anymore; for killing the Joker would stain his reputation and the good he represents. Let us not forget why Batman is doing this in the first place: In Nolan’s Batman Begins (2005), Batman’s parents are shot dead in front of his own eyes by a cold-blooded criminal trying to rob them off of their money. In “Philosophy of the Superhero”, C.W. Lesher explains, “Since then, he swears to defend Gotham City against such acts and makes every encounter with a criminal a personal encounter with the criminals who murdered his family” (par. 31). Hence, Batman’s principles go against killing others, even if the villains take away from him his beloved parents (Batman Begins) or the love of his life, Rachel (The Dark Knight). As the Joker also points out, towards the end of the movie, and hanging by a thread: “You won’t kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness…” (Nolan).

Often, we ponder upon whether or not Batman should kill the Joker. We accept the role of the superhero, and despise that of the villain. Hence, as previously stated by Goldstein, not only do we see the villain less than human, we also see the superhero, rather, as a super human, or greater than a regular citizen. This is perhaps the reason why we always identify ourselves with the superheroes: because we want to be and do more than we are naturally capable of doing. While it may be valid to argue in favor of sparing the Joker’s life that everyone’s right to life is unconditional, there is another argument, perhaps the most important one, which nobody could counter: Batman’s. By him swearing to defend Gotham City and bringing all criminals to justice, Bruce Wayne, rather, has set to stone the principles and morals he follows. And as long as he does not break these morals, he will always stand for symbol of good and justice. Therefore, Batman ought not to kill the Joker.aaaaaaa

Irony in the Grotesque Literature

- - - - - - - - - - - Ѡ - - - - - - - - - -

Horror, violence, mystery, surrealism: terms associated with human emotions which are difficult to comprehend in feeling. It is the mere experience of these which generate emotions that drive us away from; yet, they often trigger a part within us that becomes attracted to them. Perhaps, as distorted as it may sound, this basic concept gives way to a unique style in literature: the grotesque. Grotesque is a genre in literature, and generally in art, characterized by violent, freakish, and horrific scenes which, after all, maybe distorted. However, what sets the grotesque apart from the rest of horror literature is its main purpose. While horror is meant to scare the reader with gruesome/violent imagery, the grotesque accomplishes this by confusing the reader; usually, towards the end of the story, and with the use of irony.  It is irony which ends the literary grotesque effectively; making the reader have to answer his own questions regarding the symbols in the story, or even the purpose and the meaning of the story overall.

Edgar Allen Poe is mostly known for his contributions to the horror/grotesque literature. In one of his works, The Tell-Tale Heart, the Narrator sets off to kill the old man he lives with, according to him, due to his evil eye. Perhaps, what makes this story so disturbing is the Narrator’s unbalanced state of mind, which he claims he is not a madman, and the description of how he sets forth to execute the murder. He describes, “I worked hastily, but in silence. First of all, I dismembered the corpse. I cut off the head and the arms and the legs” (par. 12). The ironic twist to this story comes precisely at the end. In the beginning, the Narrator takes pride in the extreme precautions he takes in order for his plan to go about smoothly (par. 8). However, at the very end of the story, all his efforts go in vain as he turns himself in to the police, “…dissemble no more! I admit the deed! – tear up the planks! –here, here! –it is the beating of his hideous heart!” (par. 18). There are actually two similar ironies present in the story which interrelate with each other. The purpose of killing the old man is to get rid of his evil eye and stop the disturbing beating of his heart. Yet, as he is questioned by the police officers, the beating of the old man’s heart (now in his head) comes back to haunt him, forcing him to confess the crime. This story is very similar to William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, during the scene where the ghost of Banquo, whom Macbeth just ordered to kill, is haunting him at the feast (Act III, Sc. iv).

Another example of irony in the grotesque is Joyce Carol Oates’ Poor Bibi. This type of grotesque is characterized by leaving out important details, such as who/what Bibi is; which causes in the reader major confusion at the end of the story. Due to the lack of details about Bibi, we are led to accept Bibi as a symbolical character which most likely represents, based on the context of the story, the marriage between the Narrator and her husband. The reader is also faced with a big moral dilemma: euthanasia. Such dilemma introduces us to two main ironies which, once again, are interrelated. In the Narrator’s own words, “I, who’d love Bibi so, was forced to become his executioner, in the interest of mercy” (218). The Narrator, at first, intended for Bibi to die a quick, merciful death. But due to the rejection of the doctor, she does it herself in the most gruesome, hence, grotesque of ways, “Fifty feet behind the pet hospital was a deep drainage ditch filled with brackish, ill-smelling water, in which there floated, like shards of dreams, threads of detergent scum… for Bibi would not die for the longest time—grunting, cursing, ugly veins standing out in his forehead as he [husband] held the thrashing, squirming, frantic creature beneath the surface of the ditch water…” (217-218). In this case, the main grotesque act led to the main irony in the story.

In A Good Man is Hard to Find, by Flannery O’Connor, irony in the grotesque leads the reader into a very drastic situation faced by the main characters in the story. In contrast with the irony of Poor Bibi (led by the grotesque moment),  the irony of O’Connor’s story leads into the most grotesque, likewise brutal, of moments. Such a grotesque moment, characterized by evil itself, could not be described better by none other than Joyce Carol Oates in her essay Reflections of the Grotesque as, “…the forbidden truth, the unspeakable taboo—that evil is not always repellant but frequently attractive; that it has the power to make of us not simply victims… but active accomplices”. It results ironic that the Grandmother, who did not want to go to Florida not only because she instead wanted to head to Tennessee, but also because of the danger of the Misfit, is the one person who gets her and her family killed by the Misfit himself. Everything for which she happens to be cautious about ends up happening anyway and thanks to her: “I wouldn’t take my children in any direction with a criminal like that aloose in it” (117). But perhaps another grotesque element out of this story is the Grandmother’s freakishness which, after all, ends up freaking the Misfit out himself and killing her.

Grotesque literature without distortion and irony would just simply be a horror genre. The element of grotesque that makes it so unique is after all, irony. While distortion and gruesome imagery might frighten the reader, irony makes him feel more attracted to the story, as gruesome and distorted as it may be. And this in itself is ironic: that one would feel attracted to gruesome and horrific things which generate fear.  Despite the horrific and ironic elements of the grotesque, these types of stories usually send messages which might be symbolic and stand for something else, or they usually contain an overall message, suggesting a moral or social dilemma.