Harvey Bullock wrote:Enigma wrote:Harvey Bullock wrote:Enigma wrote:Harvey Bullock wrote:Those posts.
Can we just end the topic with this?

Or you guys can continue to engage in verbal fisticuffs and get the topic locked of your own volition. Your choice.
I understand this post was well-intended but it came off as condescending.
Citing
The Killing Joke without providing an argument is pointless. It wouldn't be if the "multiple choice" angle was a law of the character, so to speak, but it's not.
I already made my argument multiple times in the thread. Nor did I say that it was law of the character - it is however an interpretation that has been followed by writers time and time again. The Joker is constantly reinventing himself - The Killing Joke is the quintessential example of this, and is completely antithetical to the belief that it's 'law of the character'. The law of his character is that there 'is no law', honestly.
Don't really see how my post was condescending either? Also find it rather strange that you took issue with the tone of my post in particular when we have two other people in the thread swearing at each other and spouting internet memes.
I said that the only way in which the image could be an appropriate end to the discussion would be if it was an integral part of the character, not that you said that.
Because I knew they were kidding around.
Well, it is an integral part of the character. It acts as some form of canonised enabler for writers to constantly experiment with his character - this was first example that came to mind.
Then there's no need to berate me for actually contributing to discussion, is there?
I'm aware of that. But my point is not that I agree or disagree with you. It's that you can't "end the topic" with that image. This is because there is no correct answer to the question of, 'What's the best way to approach the Joker's origin (or lack thereof)?' From
The Killing Joke onward (and arguably prior), the most popular response to the question has been to keep it ambiguous, or relatively non-existent. We are alike in that we subscribe to this idea. But it is not to say that other variations are not to be discussed and considered. This is why it cannot "end the topic."
I'm not berating you. I felt the tone of your post was inappropriate. Did you intend this? No, as I pointed out. But it's the way it came across, so I thought I would let you know.