There’s never a satisfactory real life answer to this question. The issue, as I see it, boils down to the idea of not killing, not the actual logistics of who deserves to die and who doesn’t.
You kill the Joker, fine. Then do you kill other mass murders too? It’s not like the Joker is singular in that respect. He’s not the only mass murderer in the world (fictional or otherwise), nor will he be the last after you kill him. So you can’t argue like it’s a one-time-only situation without opening the door to the possibility of next time. The only possible exception to that rule that doesn’t open up the floodgates has to be something as fantastical and extreme as Darkseid trying to kill the entire universe and all of existence. Because that’s pretty literaly singular (and extremely badass).
In real life most people could not watch someone kill as much as the Joker and not say “ok, exception to the rule time.” If they made Batman kill the Joker it would be more “realistic” but the price is he would then become just human and not the ultimate expression of what humanity could be.
What makes Batman and his myth special, I believe, is that it postulates an inherent moral compass within most humans, one that Batman is almost perfectly in touch with. This is why he is compelled to act outside of the law in the first place, and continues to do so even once in-story elements such as Gotham’s corruption are dealt with. Batman has already reached a level of moral understanding that the rest of us are still working towards.
People love Batman because we could be him, not because we are him already.
(I adapted this post from my response in the comments section of this article -- which you should totally go read and check out the ensuing conversation)
No comments:
Post a Comment