COMICS: Richard Starkings The Letterer of Alan Moore's THE KILLING JOKE Explains The Conclusion To That Legendary Story

Still I mean the way Grant sees it is very good.

He's a douche but it's still a great view that has never been seen before and does fit.

Glad to know that this tells us that Bats didn't kill The Joker. I'm not sure but I think there's been a history between Grant Morrison v.s. Alan Moore. Morrison is just trying to be Moore but only half as good as Alan or not even close to being an Alan Moore in the industry.

The ending of story is up for interpretation. Simple as that.

Why do many bash Grant Morrison,Mark Millar,Brian Bendis & other comic writers who have done a lot of good work.

More good than bad. You can disagree with these writers but be more respectful.
Unless its criticism of Rob Liefeld..that creep is a plague to comics,bash him silly.

I'm willing to go with Starkings provided that this is what Brian Bolland told him. If you've ever read an Alan Moore script, beyond the incredibly verbose wall of text style, he's also meticulous in his details. He'll write what he wants on the page and why it's there and the reasoning behind it (in pain staking detail) so that the artist he's working with understands the what and the why of the imagery they're composing.

In short, if that's what Moore described to Bolland in the script and that's what Bolland communicated to Starkings, then that's what physically happened. Thing is, that's not the interpretive part anyway. The question is what the Hell does that mean?

The Joker is the only enemy of Batman's where the regret over all the lives that have been taken, all the pain that's been caused may well be capable of overwhelming his compunctions about cold blooded murder or any compassion or pity for the insane he might have. That's what makes the ending bizarre, particularly in light of how badly The Joker wounded Batman through the people he loves in this story.

Is this Batman gone off the deep end with Joker there to finally see it? Has he been on the verge all along? Or did the two finally find a brief moment where they reached a temporary understanding (staving off the inevitable talked about in the beginning for awhile longer)? Or was Batman just so utterly wracked with exhaustion that a simple, almost innocuous moment and how absurd it was that it was happening with the guy who just crippled a dear friend and kidnapped another one finally overwhelm him just enough to drop the mask for a second.

Or is Batman really so supremely sane and at home with who and what he is in comparison to The Joker that him being human for that one moment is the Batman equivalent of going off the deep end, if only just a little? No doubt it's a bizarre ending, and the implications are equally as bizarre, but despite early Moore's desire for TKJ to be out of continuity (with lots of hints as to that in the comic itself), it ultimately was in continuity. Whatever the Hell that ending means, The Joker's death doesn't seem to enter into it one way or the other.

Batman killing Joker at the end doesn't make much sense. He first holds his anger in order to arrest Joker by rules, like Gordon wanted. And then what:

Batman: Okay, you are now arrested. I did by the book, Gordon and I proved your theory of madnes wrong and I even didn't beat you up when gave me chance. We won; you lost.

Joker:Peg-leg-joke!

Batman: Hahaa, that does it; you're dead.
SNAP


I realize that Batman laughs not for only the joke, but because he realize that all his effort, that story has been about, was for nothing. Joker, in his insanity, has been beyond redemption the whole time.

up = us

Actually Grant's interpretation makes sense and it has more gravitas, considering what the story is about and what the relationship between the to characters is. I choose to accept Grant's version, it definitely has more depth and since it's up to interpretation anyway, there is no "right" or wrong ending.