starwolf_oakley: Charlie Crews vs. Faucet (Default)
starwolf_oakley ([personal profile] starwolf_oakley) wrote in [community profile] scans_daily2011-11-02 11:56 pm

DC Comics, psychiatrists and mental illness

I've said on this board I don't like it when superhero comics (and other forms of pop culture) make it look like mental illness is some sort of moral failing.

Three actual psychiatrists have taken issue (pun intended) with DC Comics and their description of the mentally ill, especially Batman's rogues gallery. It was originally in the New York Times.

Newsarama covered it as well.

More and four pages from THE KILLING JOKE after the cut.



"You're trying to explain a character's villainy or extreme violence by using a real-life illness, that people in the real world have, that are very common. That's when it's harmful to people in real life."

"The psychiatrists repeated several time that they don't want the beloved villains in comics to be changed, and they are fine with depictions that show bizarre behavior. But they want the references to mental illnesses to be handled more responsibly."

Most comic book villains like murdering people for their own amusement. It is hard to describe the behavior of in "genuine" psychiatry terms.

There was praise for how Geoff Johns wrote Starman, who had schizophrenia, in JUSTICE SOCIETY OF AMERICA.

Here are four pages from BATMAN: THE KILLING JOKE. While the Joker wanted to prove a point about mental illness to Batman (one bad day will drive the sanest person mad) I don't think Alan Moore was trying to write an examination of mental illness. If Moore ever did examine mental illness in a graphic novel, it would be something. (WATCHMEN touched on mental illness, but it wasn't the theme of the story.)









I recall someone once saying THE KILLING JOKE would have worked better as a Two-Face story. Perhaps.
mrstatham: (Default)

[personal profile] mrstatham 2011-11-03 04:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Also, let's be fair. That DC realised they could cash-cow Killing Joke (especially once it got Tim Burton's endorsement when he was making Batman '89 and cited TKJ as one of his favourite stories (nevermind he also admitted he didn't really read much else)) and decided to keep it as canon is hardly Moore's fault.

Yes, he crippled Barbara, but you can't pin the twenty+ years of being in a chair as Oracle on him; Blame DC. Anyone who reads TKJ can clearly tell it DOESN'T fit as an in-continuity story. The final pages all reek of it being the final night that Batman and Joker will ever do this dance - And then the police find Batman laughing with the Joker. How does that fit in canon? I know there's an issue where Barbara challenges Batman over the matter, but it doesn't work. If Gordon knew that the man he trusted was laughing it up with the man who just crippled his daughter, he'd have him flung in Arkham.

It doesn't work. And whilst I enjoy aspects of TKJ, I don't think Moore is to blame for the long-lasting repercussions of the story.
biod: Cute Galactus (Default)

[personal profile] biod 2011-11-03 07:00 pm (UTC)(link)
It was panel was ambiguous in that panel whether Batman has his hand on the Joker's shoulder or if he was choking him. If the latter, then I'm sure Gordon wouldn't mind the laughter as much.
And I've written a very small piece about the Joker in which his sense of humor is more appreciated than anyone wants to admit. Anyone want to read that?

[personal profile] kksimone 2011-11-04 02:33 am (UTC)(link)
Even before the end it doesn't fit in continuity--Bruce's got a framed copy of Bob Kane's Batman Family Photo. Half the people/imps/dogs in that picture didn't exist and had never existed. I mean, when TKJ came out. I think all of them now exist again, but of course Kathy Kane was still murdered (So, did the Kathy Kane murder case being reopened storyline ever go anywhere?)