Why don't people want a Joker origin?

[BFF]

1) It wouldn't be done right
2) The mystery is better

[Darkspellmaster]

See I think I'm one of the few that can't stand the mystery of the Joker. The problem is that so many people say "It's because he's a mystery that he's so cool." The thing though is for writers, if you don't know where your character is coming from after a while it becomes harder to write the character. One of the things also to remember is that there is such a thing as too much of a mystery. Take for example this one series of books, can't remember the name of them but it was a scifi thing for young adults. Anyway one of the bigger things in the story was that one of the lead antagonist (not the main bad guy in this case) was sometimes helping out the heroes and they didn't know why. This went on for several books and the author kept telling people "Oh you'll love to see what it is that he's hiding." and then in the end...he never revealed it. People got bored with it, and became annoyed with the fact that he was so much of a puzzle.

The Joker, I think has the challenge of having the same issue eventually. Someone mentioned the idea that he's more terrifying because we don't know where he came from and that he's like the zodiac killer. The thing is that the Zodiac wasn't seen, and those that did see him ended up dead. There's also the fact that he or she was or is someone that was a normal person hiding in plain sight. The Joker is pulling more off of people's fear of clowns and the fear of "the other" where people are afraid of things they can't understand, in this case the Joker's reasoning for committing his crimes. Everyone in Gotham has seen him, he's not exactly not someone who doesn't stand out. So the idea that he's mysterious because he's a physical unknown goes right out the window with that one. You could point to the idea that his insanity makes him scary, and for some of it, it does, but what becomes far creepier is when it's indicated that he knows what's going on and chooses to act this way because of how he broke. Easier to pretend and forget then live in the reality that you've done so much for so long.

Wolverine's origin was told so that Fox wouldn't tell it, and probably make it far worse then what we got, and apparently Claremont was planning on exploring a history for Wolverine but got voted against it because it would slow down a story he was in the middle of. Honestly, like I've said above, I would find it more compelling for the Joker to have a history because then you could explore other facets of his world. Right now it's just "How much chaos can we reach?" and that can only take you so far in crafting a character. It's when there's exploration about his past that we get a deeper joker, it's why Riddler, Catwoman, two face, Strange, Ivy and Harley wind up being so compelling because one can connect with them due to their past: An obsessive compulsive disorder, a thief that also can do good, former DA trying to do the right thing, a doctor obsessed with Batman, a woman that wants to fix things with nature, a woman that has a thing for a man that she was trying to help cure. We can see ourselves in them, with Joker we only see the "entity" that he is and there's this "He's like a god" sort of view point.

If you want to make Joker a being that's a trickster/chaotic force of nature, that's fine, but how long can you keep that up before it becomes passe? It's one of the reasons why DC sometimes puts him away for a while. Besides that, there are far more compelling forces of nature or pure evil that are in Batman's rogues. So why not be fair and just give Joker a story that we can say "Yeah I see what made him go off the rails."

[The Cool Thatguy]

See I think I'm one of the few that can't stand the mystery of the Joker. The problem is that so many people say "It's because he's a mystery that he's so cool." The thing though is for writers, if you don't know where your character is coming from after a while it becomes harder to write the character.

Except that we do know where the Joker is coming from. Life is a joke, and he's the only one who gets the punchline. He operates on his own twisted logic, like with the Joker fish.

Why does he feel that way? Who cares? His motif is well established at this point.

[GigiFusc]

See I think I'm one of the few that can't stand the mystery of the Joker. The problem is that so many people say "It's because he's a mystery that he's so cool." The thing though is for writers, if you don't know where your character is coming from after a while it becomes harder to write the character.

Woah. Can't agree with that at all I'm afraid. I'd say it's the opposite. One of the reasons the Joker resonates so much in his stories is because he has no limits. Those limits extend to pretty much every part of his life as well as his persona. The lack of knowing where he comes from allows him to be everything to everyone.

Why is he such a beloved character? Because of his personality. The unknown origin adds to that personality whereas a known one would only take away.

[Darkspellmaster]

Except that we do know where the Joker is coming from. Life is a joke, and he's the only one who gets the punchline. He operates on his own twisted logic, like with the Joker fish.

Why does he feel that way? Who cares? His motif is well established at this point.

To a point, sure. But why is life a joke? What makes it where he finds humor in destruction? I mean sure we know "Hey life's a joke and you guys don't get it." it's been his operation for years, but what made him come to that conclusion in the first place? You have a character like Maximus from the Inhumans who has been seen as having qualifications like the joker and he has a back story that explains why he went mad (his brother's voice and other things) and it helps push his reasoning for his actions. Or you have Freeze, who has this tragic story story that made him. Prior to the animated series we had "A guy that just likes to freeze things, he's a mad scientist," which worked well in the early time of comics, but readers tastes have become more intense over the years and there's an expectation that there has to be more then "I like to freeze things" as a means of explaining why he does things.

Or take Loki from Marvel, just as much of a loose cannon as the Joker, but the reason why Marvel changed it up with him was because there was only so far you can go with Loki as a character in regard to his madcapped villainy before you ran out of ways for him to heckle Thor. Same thing with the Joker. You can only make the punchline so funny a certain number of times before the joke becomes stale.

Why not care though? Eventually the Joker will have to expand. Heck he needed to in the 70s or he was going to be left behind. One could argue that the killing Joke saved him from being chucked aside because killer clown is really a one note thing, and heck the reason that people turned him into a psycho was because his "I'm robbing things" wasn't going to cut it anymore in regard to story telling. So there is reason to care where he's coming from, it's why writers have tried over the years to explain why he goes after Batman. It's why most if not all of the stories that have the two of them in there have the writer have Joker talk about why he and batman are so similar, etc. Sure having a motif is great, but if you don't expand on that then you lose the character into a one dimensional caricature. It's why older characters are going to expand in order to be used now and aren't shuffled off to the archives.

Woah. Can't agree with that at all I'm afraid. I'd say it's the opposite. One of the reasons the Joker resonates so much in his stories is because he has no limits. Those limits extend to pretty much every part of his life as well as his persona. The lack of knowing where he comes from allows him to be everything to everyone.

Why is he such a beloved character? Because of his personality. The unknown origin adds to that personality whereas a known one would only take away.

Yeah I suppose but it depends upon the writer. Grant saw him as a force of nature, they turned him into some sort of weird entity of chaos that wasn't even human in some cases, and that's all well in good for Elseworld. On the other hand you have a very human version that Alan Moore created where situations pushed him into losing his mind and that the human condition can grow that sort of madness (the one bad day thing). Thing is that if he has limitations of being a character that can't reform, must always be some chaotic person, needs to be a clown and has to tell a joke you can't expand on it. For a writer like say Tite Kurbo, who has issues with characters, Joker would be a bad thing as he tried to pull a mystery with a character and that never went anywhere. Some writers can do Joker well, others make him terrible. Again it's to a point, you can't have him as a hero or someone that actually helps out Batman because people won't accept that as that's not within the limitations that people already put on him.

How would an origin take away from it? I would think it would enhance it in some way. It doesn't have to be a fully fleshed out one, just something to at least give us an idea of what happened to him. And why the hell not? People regard the Killing Joke so much because of that back story, it's one of the few things in the book that people mostly agree is a great thing about the joker because, for once, we can actually see him as a person rather then a force of nature.

[Lightning Rider]

Anyone else have thoughts on the "Confidential" origin? I feel lonely.

[GigiFusc]

Yeah I suppose but it depends upon the writer. Grant saw him as a force of nature, they turned him into some sort of weird entity of chaos that wasn't even human in some cases, and that's all well in good for Elseworld. On the other hand you have a very human version that Alan Moore created where situations pushed him into losing his mind and that the human condition can grow that sort of madness (the one bad day thing). Thing is that if he has limitations of being a character that can't reform, must always be some chaotic person, needs to be a clown and has to tell a joke you can't expand on it. For a writer like say Tite Kurbo, who has issues with characters, Joker would be a bad thing as he tried to pull a mystery with a character and that never went anywhere. Some writers can do Joker well, others make him terrible. Again it's to a point, you can't have him as a hero or someone that actually helps out Batman because people won't accept that as that's not within the limitations that people already put on him.

How would an origin take away from it? I would think it would enhance it in some way. It doesn't have to be a fully fleshed out one, just something to at least give us an idea of what happened to him. And why the hell not? People regard the Killing Joke so much because of that back story, it's one of the few things in the book that people mostly agree is a great thing about the joker because, for once, we can actually see him as a person rather then a force of nature.

So, you make a lot of very good points and I guess really it just comes down to POV.

In character creation, you build a history for a character, you add F&F's, you create some kind of motivation etc and of course, you often create an origin.
Nothing wrong with that. 99.9% of characters have all of that. No problem.

Then, you have that 0.1%. That's the Joker. No proper origin. In a sea of characters living in both the Batman universe and the DCU itself, he stands alone (or at least , almost alone as I'm sure there's one or two other that don't have an origin???). That makes him stand out. The lack of clarity in how he came to be makes him unique in this sea of characters. Why would anyone want to plug that gap?

With ref to TKJ, Moore did write somewhat of an origin (that was actually just a retelling of a very old Bob Kane story). But even in TKJ, it's left ambiguous. Joker says 'one day he remembers it one way, another day, he remembers it another way.' He says he prefers his origin to be 'multiple choice'. So what we're reading there is one version of a possible origin.

[phantom1592]

Of course, this depends on whether or not the "Red Hood" origin is even real to begin with.

They've retconned it a few times, usually whether the red hood was a mastermind or just a random guy... but it's usually accepted that the man in the hood that went into the chemicals is still the one that came out as the joker.

Honestly one of my issues with Ledger and 'wanna know how I got these scars...' thing. Without that early batman encounter... there just doesn't seem to be that fire between Batman and Joker. No "I'm this way because of you" connection. Just a random psycho riding into town one day...

The same reason most fans didn't want to know Wolverine's origin. The mystery is better than knowing because the actual truth probably wouldn't do the character justice.

I would debate that most fans DID want to know about his origin. The thing that makes a mystery so exciting, is finally solving it. Every time they hinted at the Weapon X program or Shiva or Gambits background or Ketch's Ghost Rider history... Sales went up. 'The mystery revealed' draws back all the fans who were bored with the teases and mystery.

Now that's not to say that ANY of those reveals were any good... because they all kind of sucked in the end, but I can't think of anyone who said 'I don't know anything about his past and that's awesome...' Everyone was curious about their secrets.

Anyone else have thoughts on the "Confidential" origin? I feel lonely.

I never heard of that one, I'd be really curious to read it. Sounds pretty good.



I think the problem I have with the mystery being 'the core' of Joker... is that nobody really 'cares' anymore. Outside of the '3 jokers' chair reveal... Nobody really tries to delve into his past, or wonder who he was, or try to find some edge over him... It's never referenced, In-universe, nobody really cares anymore. Joker is the Joker and they'll base their info on him from when the clown appeared...

with Wolverine or Gambit... that 'mystery' of who they were and what they did before was always there. All the characters wondered, they took bets on the outcomes... Wolverine did whatever he could to try to solve it... but the readers were always reminded that it was a core concept there. Ghost Rider had MULTIPLE stories telling us what he was NOT... before they ever got around to telling us what he WAS...

Joker's stories just seem based on the present. If they released a flashback issue with a name and picture and then just carried on with life as normal, I doubt it would really matter in the long run. His mystery is just... background now.

[Conway]

We've had this discussion a lot, the one thing that most agree on is the "Mysterious is better" status quo. But nobody has said why. That's like saying "God is better than evolution" it might be true to you, but it's an opinion without reason. So here's why I think "Mysterious is better":

Of Batman's rouges the best ones are the ones that mirror some part of him. Like Bruce, Cobblepot was a rich kid whose parents death left him with money, no guidance, and a need to take control so he creates a secret identity that intimidates people. Like Bruce, Crane experienced a tragedy and dedicated his life to making sure everyone else felt like him and created a secret identity to strike fear into the superstitious. Like Bruce, Harvey is torn between two identities one that believes in law and order and the other that knows that is an illusion and chaos is the only way to get what he really wants. It goes on like this with Selina, Sionis, Zsasz, and Hush among others.

Joker is unique. He doesn't represent Bruce, and he doesn't represent the duality of Bruce and Batman. The Joker is the answer to The Bat and only The Bat. To Batman and the citizens of Gotham he represents the same thing that Batman represents to Joker and all the other criminals. He is an unknown that will show up at the worst possible moment when you don't expect it and ruin the most thorough of plans. He is the dark shadow that there is no answer or preparation for.

If you give him an origin you ruin that. That is his power. He is to us he is what Batman is to him. That is why I don't want an origin. That being said, there have been some enjoyable origin stories, just nothing that is worth ruining the character's power for.

[K. Jones]

See, I'm a guy who thinks a Joker origin can be done. I'm also a guy who believes the best villains in fiction retain their mystique. Like, it was enough to learn who Darth Vader was, but when they actually showed him in those prequels ... hoooooo boy. Letdown city. Ditto Boba Fett. Intergalactic man of mystery thus reduced. Even the Emperor was kind of diminished by showing him before you know, the epic build up of "Finally showing him" in Jedi.

But I'm obsessed with the idea of a Joker origin because frankly, I do adore the idea of his origins being very interesting, but also kind of mundane. Very tied into just Gotham City themes as a whole. Where it does and doesn't parallel Bruce's origins. The fact that there have historically been like 10 Joker origins and paying some respect holistically to all of them, as well as all the most truly iconic versions of Joker over the years and how this person could grow into those depictions. But in particular, in absolute particular, going back to the earliest handful of Joker appearances, and thinking "what could this guy's origin be?" based on those and only those comics appearances.

I wrote one at one point and realized that it was getting too involved with his parentage. Not that they were anybody special, but that parallel to Batman - knowing who his folks were - is one of the least important to attempt to draw. Oh, Bruce grew up with GOOD parents and had a tragedy and they died and thus that's who he became! is irrelevant to the Joker. I mean we've already seen weird contrasty takes on that with guys like The Wrath and Prometheus and parallel Batmen and Lincoln March and onward. That's not what Joker represents. Joker is Batman's archnemesis but he is NOT his "opposite", like his Reverse-Flash or his Ocean Master or whatever. That's not how he challenges Batman - because those things, that Batman has lived through and dwelt on a lot and thought about for his whole life - aren't strong challenges for Batman. His parentage is not what's going to make The Joker represent the 'wild card'. The person who can never be pinned down, who always appears to "die" but returns because his body wasn't found, baptised in the toxic acid stain of urban decay.

No, themes of performativity - the roots and origins of theatre, comedy/tragedy, masques, mythic tricksters, stage, stage tricks, stage and street magic tricks, presentation, comedy, social satire, gallows humor, Gothic romance and horror, narcissism and nihilism are absolutely utterly enough "crossover" with "Batman-themes" to the point where "family parentage origin schlock" is really irrelevant to Joker.

In my mind Joker almost had to come from a theatre background. His death-houses, contraptions, costumes, using the whole city as a stage. I mean that dude went to drama school. I'm not saying I'm not pretty beholden to him having old pre-Joker links to gangsters - I firmly believe that to be the case. And that's as "Native-born Gotham" as it gets, too. I also think some of his affectation - his performative aristocratic stuff that Mark Hamill perfected - is presentation of how he perceives "wealth and privilege and rich people" to be and is practiced, but not native to him, because it seems like an approximation of affluence as viewed from below. And I also think that too many parallels to like, say, being a poor kid from Crime Alley, like Jason, or a circus kid, like Dick, would be a mistake.

His name isn't important. That's contrast to Batman, too - where the name "Wayne" means so much. So much. Joker's name is so unimportant that Batman can't even figure it out. Joker's entrance into crime expertise can't have stemmed from desperation, because desperate people - even driven insane by chemicals - have motives that make sense. Which means either he wasn't born ultra-impoverished or that he was always a wicked little bastard and took whatever he needed to get by (which tracks with his not caring a wit about society, or playing by the rules, and also tracks with his glorious survival skills.)

These themes paint a picture at least of who he was before and what his origins might be.

[suemorphplus209]

Possible origins for the Joker, but leave it up to me to imagine which origin is the "real" origin. I like the toxic waste origin from The Killing Joke and 1989 though.

[Wandering_Wand]

The unknown makes him more unsettling.

Agreed.

To answer the OP short and sweet: I don't need a Joker origin. The Joker is just The Joker. His aura alone is enough for me and I enjoy not knowing his origin. The Dark Knight explored this after he was booked at the MCU (I'm sure most of you remember how those scenes were). It really comes down to me not needing to know. It plays into his persona and gives it a psychological kick that helps sell the character.

Plus, here's another major point. Some origins aside, particularly Moore's, I think some of us don't really want to accept that the Joker has a human origin (not suggesting he's alien or anything). But, sometimes I don't want to think he's just some crazy guy. He's more than that.

[Coal Tiger]

After 75 years, would ANY origin story be satisfying? The interesting thing about the Joker is what he does, not who he was. Any attempt to explain it would be a waste of time.

[oasis1313]

Hey, let the dude have a little mystery. If DC tried to give him a canonical origin, they'd just mess it up.