Yuku free message boards

I think the issue with your analysis, King, as a bit of an armchair psychologist, is that sociopathy is a form of psychosis, one of the capital letters of psychology.

While not a scientist, I would say that most of the population of the world is neurotic to some level or another-that is, posessing some level of mental illness or abberation, but able to function in society. Have a habit you take too far? Wash your hands alot? Have issues with confrontation? Most of these can be traced back to a base neurosis of varying levels.

The Joker, and Luthor, can both function in society enough to manipulate it. They realise, on some level, that what they do is wrong, or at least will be seen as wrong, and make amends or reperations-they are borderline cases, like alot of supervillains. I'd argue that Joker and Luthor both see people as not being important, and would snuff out a human life like they'd swat a bug, with a handful of exceptions-major players in the drama of their life story. This seems petty, but the distinction between borderline cases and full psychotics is really important in assessing their MO for comitting crimes, and if we're takeing that into account, we need to take it all into account.

I'd agree that alot of the, "HAHAHAHA time to punch some babies! Wheeee!" is, Joker-wise, an act. He holds back his real criminal genius under a veneer of savage, uncontrolable madness because it gives him more time to enjoy the grand duel with Batman. But Joker's insanity is indesputable: He is, at the very least, fixated on 1) Batman and Batman's allies, 2) Laws and social mores, so much so that he strives desperately to prove them false.

That's why he collects money, and keeps henchpeople, and invents poision gas and deadly gadgets, instead of chopping up a few neighbors in his basement and calling it a day, like most hard-wired killers do. Joker dosen't just strike at Batman, arguably until the game between them reaches its final point, he strikes at the very concept of law, and to effect an entire society, you need to use its tools to provide a support structure.

Luthor's motivations are power-based, which are no less corrupt, but I think alltogether more, well, sane. People do terrible things for power, and Luthor's willingness to sacrafice anything for it is all too human, within the scope of our ambitions and rationality. Even strikeing Superman down, proving the domination of the human will over all aliens, metas, magicians, freaks, geeks, and weirdos, the subject which he is obviously obsessed with, goes back to power. Luthor sees himself as the apex of humanity: Of course humanity must be superior to all other forces, because the scion of Man isn't going to except being the best of a second rate organization.

Which isn't to say that I believe he is a healthy-minded individual, but that I think claiming Luthor is insane is sort of belling the depths of his evil. If anything, Luthor and Joker express two different sides of the evil that men(and women, my flair for the dramatic is not ment to be excludeing anyone.) do, I think.

Joker is humanity broken, rebuilding itself around ideals that seem almost alien to the normal person-until a little reflection reveals how easy it is to become as driven towards hate and destruction as the Joker, if not as intellegent and capable of carrying out the deeds. Everyone has a dark, savage side that wants to rip and tear anything civilized down, and Joker represents the ultimate realization of that.

On the other hand, Luthor is the absolute domination of civilization, the corruption that is the fate of any empire, the idea that greatness can only be achieved through atrocity in Italian silk and a red power tie. If Joker preaches that dreams and hopes cannot happen, Luthor's gospel is that they can be made reality-as long as you have the will to make the rest of the world suffer for your goals.

Both are evil, as iconic to evil as Superman and Batman are to our concept of good, I think. That's one of the benefits of a fantastic setting-we can say that people are good and evil without getting into a dozen moral debates and avoiding offending anyone's politics or any of that minutae that clogs up most attempts at similar broad themes in a hyper-realist setting. This lets writers explore the limits of the human experience, if they so choose, with actual people instead of broad concepts and too-thick metaphore.

Wow, this is long, and I bet badly spelled. I should get some sleep. Thanks for coming over, KK, this has been some mighty intresting conversation!