So what exactly happens at the end of Alan Moore’s classic The Killing Joke? It’s a highly debated subject amongst comic book enthusiasts, one that speaks to the grandeur of the piece itself and the intrigue the closing panels provide. The answer seems to centre primarily on whether Batman actually kills The Joker – however this is far too simplistic an observation for something as complex as an Alan Moore comic. To really get to grips with what could have happened after The Joker regales Batman with his infamous joke, you need to step back and examine the themes of the comic as a whole, and the relationship of Batman and The Joker in general.
Conversely, Dionysus, the God of intoxication and primal lust, represents an affirmation of the inescapability of human suffering. To live is to suffer in many forms; to eradicate suffering is to exist as something devoid of meaning or purpose. Suffering, though brutal and disturbing, is a necessary facet of the human condition. The Dionysian understands the necessity for suffering and wholly embraces it by escaping (regressing) to the chaotic state of nature and the primal urges of the animal.
This duality lies at the core of all the great tragic works. In Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, Oedipus demonstrates the Apollonian desire to dominate fate and existence, to break free of the prophecy of the oracle and to control nature via intelligence and cunning (epitomised by his encounter with the Sphinx at the gates of Thebes). These Apollonian desires inevitably bring wrath and ruin upon Oedipus, demonstrating the simple maxim that ‘one steps onto the path they often seek to avoid’ (the ultimate irony of Oedipus’ quest).
As the tragic hero (representing humankind in general), Oedipus believes he can master the Dionysian will of fate and nature through reason and intellect, he falsely assumes the chaos of life can be controlled and governed, limiting the suffering and pain it exudes. Inevitably, what Oedipus enacts is the compounding and severe worsening of the suffering he initially attempts to avoid. Through his arrogance (the arrogance of humanity believing we are the masters of nature and fate) and his cunning (the assurance of humanities knowledge gained through the sciences), Oedipus only comes to understand that suffering is unavoidable, necessary and worsened when we attempt to avoid it.
Beyond this distinction of moral belief and nihilistic world view, the two figures mirror one another in their extreme forms of action, deep obsessions and drives. The Joker acts to show Batman the true nature of existence resting in chaos, Batman fights to impose an order and stability upon said chaos. There is however one further, subtle distinction.
So, what exactly happens at the end of The Killing Joke? Well, in short, the Dionysian overcomes the Apollonian. This is clear whether Batman actually kills The Joker or not. Either, in the face of the final joke’s message, Batman realises he is indeed truly mad (demonstrated by the erratic laughter in the final panels) and the silhouetted arm presents an embrace of solidarity towards The Joker and his chaotic worldview. Or, in light of the narrative’s events and the simple fact that The Joker will never stop, Batman realises the futility of his moral code in the face of utter chaos, the silhouetted arm actually depicting the Joker’s inevitable, unseen murder.
The tragic irony of The Killing Joke rests in the simple fact that killing The Joker would destroy Batman’s morally virtuous code, that which distinguishes him from all the other insane, costumed figures of Gotham. But keeping him alive would be an act of sheer madness. Would a sane person really allow the master of chaos to live and wreak havoc on the world whenever he chooses? Is a moral code really just the whim of a madman?