What do you think?
Rate this book
The Joker: A Serious Study of the Clown Prince of Crime
Along with Batman, Spider-Man, and Superman, the Joker stands out as one of the most recognizable comics characters in popular culture. While there has been a great deal of scholarly attention on superheroes, very little has been done to understand supervillains. This is the first academic work to provide a comprehensive study of this villain, illustrating why the Joker appears so relevant to audiences today.
Batman's foe has cropped up in thousands of comics, numerous animated series, and three major blockbuster feature films since 1966. Actually, the Joker debuted in DC comics Batman 1 (1940) as the typical gangster, but the character evolved steadily into one of the most ominous in the history of sequential art. Batman and the Joker almost seemed to define each other as opposites, hero and nemesis, in a kind of psychological duality. Scholars from a wide array of disciplines look at the Joker through the lens of feature films, video games, comics, politics, magic and mysticism, psychology, animation, television, performance studies, and philosophy. As the first volume that examines the Joker as complex cultural and cross-media phenomenon, this collection adds to our understanding of the role comic book and cinematic villains play in the world and the ways various media affect their interpretation. Connecting the Clown Prince of Crime to bodies of thought as divergent as Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, contributors demonstrate the frightening ways in which we get the monsters we need.
Batman's foe has cropped up in thousands of comics, numerous animated series, and three major blockbuster feature films since 1966. Actually, the Joker debuted in DC comics Batman 1 (1940) as the typical gangster, but the character evolved steadily into one of the most ominous in the history of sequential art. Batman and the Joker almost seemed to define each other as opposites, hero and nemesis, in a kind of psychological duality. Scholars from a wide array of disciplines look at the Joker through the lens of feature films, video games, comics, politics, magic and mysticism, psychology, animation, television, performance studies, and philosophy. As the first volume that examines the Joker as complex cultural and cross-media phenomenon, this collection adds to our understanding of the role comic book and cinematic villains play in the world and the ways various media affect their interpretation. Connecting the Clown Prince of Crime to bodies of thought as divergent as Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, contributors demonstrate the frightening ways in which we get the monsters we need.
286 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 26, 2015
14 people are currently reading
181 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 18, 2018
This is a book of non-fiction, academic essays about the Joker. A number of topics are brought up in connection with this character, including politics, philosophy, digital culture, and performance. Unless you've learned to read academic writing sometime in your life, and to appreciate it on some level, you are going to be bored out of your mind. I enjoyed the essays but I could not rate this book five stars because these essays are written for academic journals and not for the pleasure of reading. I've often wondered why scholars don't learn to write well, and there are no answers to that question here. But if you are willing to endure possibly dry writing, there is much of interest in this book.
March 25, 2025
Below are points you pick up throughout the book, and some are repeated ad nauseum, so not a lot of these correspond to a “book review” as they are thoughts on the essays within.
There’s a long rant about the unhealthy relationship between Joker and Harley, which in 2025 is well understood, both being in love with your abuser and being his tool and the manipulation to keep the relationship this way. Not sure about the interdependence points, as nowadays Harley is separate from the Joker, and it felt like the romantic nature of the Joker was secondary to his Batman obsession. Any time/energy spent on Harley is less time spent on Batman, so it seemed inevitable that their relationship would end (even if it’s close to 20 years too late).
I don’t know about all this “gender performance” crap, it seems dumb to me and not entirely relevant, but maybe it’s due to my lack of care of Joker’s love life. I mean there’s a lot of assumptions made, that gender performance is somehow expected or normalized when I think it is not. Maybe it’s part of the pattern of the Joker, but it’s not one that is entirely interesting or gripping or necessary. To me, it’s all an academic nothing burger. Yes, their relationship is abusive and wrong, but I don’t think that’s something unexpected or vital to who the Joker is. There are examples of his abuse or manipulation, but that’s all in service to his goal (Batman). I dunno, pretty obvious points brought up here, and if you want a breakdown of Focault then read on.
Batman’s struggle with Joker is more than law-keeper vs.law-breaker. Batman is a representative of the ruling class being confronted by someone who wants to destroy the class system. It would take more than one of them dying to end this warfare. If Batman is killed or unmasked, the same forces remain in power. If the Joker dies, the masses remain. Joker’s goal is then not to destroy Batman, but the system he protects.
One can see that the Joker is more than just an anarchist, or just insane. Neither is he just a criminal seeking power or wealth. He commits more crimes than any other member of the Rogue’s gallery, and one does not do so successfully without intelligence. If power/wealth was what he sought after, not announcing his crimes and not engaging with Batman would grant him that wish quite easily. So what does the Joker seek? As said above, destruction of the system of capitalism and commodification. Such a system is one that gave Bruce Wayne power and wealth and privilege, but only poverty and despair to Joker and everyone else on the bottom wrung of society’s ladder. If such a system is destroyed, there would be no need for a Batman, which would ultimately mean Batman’s freedom as well. The problem arising from that destruction is what a “free” system would look like, and who would guide it? Of course, the Joker is the only one who wants to create and oversee such a system, much like how Lenin took control and became authoritarian rather than a true communist. This was repeated by Stalin as well, who singlehandedly ruled the system. Even if Joker destroyed the “system”, how would he rule? Would not having an enemy to fight be his downfall? Would he succumb to the temptations many other dictators fell for? It is a worthy question, but I would say history has shown that one figure cannot rule a multitude without falling for the trappings of power.
There’s a couple nothing-burger essays here, such as the Obama-Joker, which doesn’t quite add anything to the study of Joker or reveal anything we didn’t know before such as how he can be used as a symbol for a political enemy. It’s entirely skippable.
Now we get into Nietzsche (pg.210)!
The essay starts with the “Superman” (the philosophical one called Übermensch, not the Kryptonian Kal-El), the Übermensch, the “over man” as Nietzsche calls him and the difference between “slave morality” and “master morality”. The Superman is driven by his will to power towards the goal of self-overcoming and constant transformation. That transformation also goes beyond morality, justifying any actions that aid in the pursuit of power. The quest for power and self-mastery is beyond good and evil, either of which can be necessary. Actions that are necessary are deemed “good”, in the Superman logic, and anything else that is not is “bad”. The ends justify the means. Here we start going down a slippery slope, and unfortunately this can be interpreted and justified to do horrible things and unfortunately Nietzsche’s philosophy was used to justify the horrible actions by the Germans in WWII.
Important point to address. Nietzsche was not a Nazi, he was decades dead when the party formed. Nietzsche was very much opposed to Anti-Semitism. Nietzsche was not responsible for the Nazi party using his philosophy. What I find dangerous is how easily the philosophy was adopted to fit their agenda. Doesn’t help that Nietzsche himself also started to grow mentally ill and experience “madness”. Max Whyte, PhD from Cambridge, writes “Baeumler’s depiction of Nietzsche…was certainly one-sided and myopic, but it was neither incoherent nor absurd”. So yes, the Nazi party may not have understood the “Superman” philosophy entirely, but it was close enough that it was adapted basically nation-wide. Was that Nietzsche’s intent? No. But you will see how the author of this essay also molds Nietzsche’s work to more or less defend the statement that The Joker is trying to reach the Superman level and embodies “master morality” and how Batman succumbs to “slave morality”. You can see just from the word associations that The Joker is being glorified and embellished, and (more or less) someone whom should be emulated as the “Superman” is the next step in human evolution through the quest of power and lack of morality.
Around pg.221 is where I think we get “lost in the sauce” a bit with the implications of the Superman/Nitzche philosophy of slave/master morality and the Arkham City video game. The master morality is that nothing should be avoided if it helps you achieve greatness and power, the end justifies the means. Killing, stealing, doesn’t matter if it feeds that endless black hole that is quest for “power”. Slave morality is everything opposite to that, which most of us operate under. Killing people is evil, no matter the reason, laws should be established so that these activities are not just done for “power”, you get the picture. Joker is apparently the embodiment of MASTER morality since he does whatever he wants in the quest for his goal. I guess I see the logic and understand, not sure if I necessarily agree but in the framework I can see the justification.
Let’s mosey on over to the Batman: Arkham City game (BAC). Batman rescues a paramedic, a paramedic who assumed people would need his help. OBVIOUSLY the paramedic is also the embodiment of SLAVE morality, since the paramedic eases pain and suffering. BUT WAIT, Nietzche stated that pain and suffering also the stepping stones to becoming a Superman and becoming closer to Master morality, so the paramedic thus prevents people becoming their best and truest selves and thus does not fit in the Arkham City world. “Pain is something that needs to be experienced and overcome, not something to be bandaged and soothed”, the author states. Uhh…okay? Let’s apply that logic in our modern world. You’re riding your bike somewhere, the bike chain snaps, no speed control and thus you hit something (car/pole/etc) and break your ankle. Call 9-1-1? Why, so you can be rid of the pain and suffering that will ultimately make you closer to the Übermensch? What a weak thought. Obviously, you need to suffer and “overcome” the pain and your messed up ankle (which may or may not be the same again). You follow religious morals or uphold laws? You are obviously a target then for any would-be “Superman” to overcome, by any means necessary, just like The Joker uses any means necessary to overcome Batman. That’s not a dangerous though train to follow at all, right?
Take all of philosophy with a spoonful of salt. It can be a little silly when you apply this to en mass. Can you imagine if everyone just adopted this Superman/Nietzsche philosophy? Anyone can do anything, because they’re not repressing their emotional triggers to violence or internally debating whether something is morally right or wrong? Crime and legality are no longer defined, anyone can be killed at any moment for the sake of power. What a wonderful world that would be, wouldn’t it? Back to page 221 and it’s awkward take on Batman’s slave morality…
This essays rambles on and on about how Batman deceives and lies and holds up his code and how that’s all slave morality and uses the word “ressentiment” about 10 times. He goes on about how Batman uses deception, and in the next paragraph mentions how Joker finally faces Batman in the end as he needs to beat him to have something to overcome (more Ubermensch babble) BUT Joker blows up the ceiling as they’re fighting and buries Batman under rubble…is that not deception? Or is it ignored because Joker can use whatever tools he deems necessary in his quest for besting Batman? So Batman cannot do the same, just because he is labelled as a man of SLAVE morality? I don’t know, the logic is hard to follow in this tumbleweed of an essay, if Batman’s quest is to best the Joker (for whatever reason) then it doesn’t matter if Batman lies and deceives to achieve this goal? Doesn’t the end justify the means, as we’ve heard stated over and over about the Joker? Batman can’t do the same? Just because he is a man of ressentiment? So two people can use the exact same tools, to have the exact same outcome, but due to a different label put on them by Nietzsche’s logic one somehow true to themselves and should be admired, and the other be loathed? Is this also sort of confusing anyone?
Oh boy, wait til this last paragraph. “Through this analysis, in many ways we can see the Joker as a superhero rather than the more traditional superhero, Batman”. Oh boy, this is the same logic someone can apply and justify Hitler’s holocaust. This (to me) is extremely dangerous thinking and justification. Ryan Litsey is a dangerous man, I will be very wary of reading anything by him in the future. I mean you can express your right to free speech all you want, I just think it’s a little dangerous to regard the Joker as someone to emulate by associating him with words like “master” or call a “hero”.
Although there are some interesting points to take, most of these essays are a bit dense and sort of…too in-depth when comparing Batman/Joker’s psyche with Jungian ideas of anima/shadow/trickster, etc. I think we lose the connection to the title of the book when you talk about Hades being a funeral deity and how close that representation is to Hel, Loki’s daughter, and how ALL of those relate to the house of tarot cards analogy in Arkham…I guess I wish there was a bit more editing to have the work connect more and use simpler language to appeal to those who read Batman. It’s easy to get lost in the jargon and just gloss over several paragraphs. There are many run-on sentences.
There’s a long rant about the unhealthy relationship between Joker and Harley, which in 2025 is well understood, both being in love with your abuser and being his tool and the manipulation to keep the relationship this way. Not sure about the interdependence points, as nowadays Harley is separate from the Joker, and it felt like the romantic nature of the Joker was secondary to his Batman obsession. Any time/energy spent on Harley is less time spent on Batman, so it seemed inevitable that their relationship would end (even if it’s close to 20 years too late).
I don’t know about all this “gender performance” crap, it seems dumb to me and not entirely relevant, but maybe it’s due to my lack of care of Joker’s love life. I mean there’s a lot of assumptions made, that gender performance is somehow expected or normalized when I think it is not. Maybe it’s part of the pattern of the Joker, but it’s not one that is entirely interesting or gripping or necessary. To me, it’s all an academic nothing burger. Yes, their relationship is abusive and wrong, but I don’t think that’s something unexpected or vital to who the Joker is. There are examples of his abuse or manipulation, but that’s all in service to his goal (Batman). I dunno, pretty obvious points brought up here, and if you want a breakdown of Focault then read on.
Batman’s struggle with Joker is more than law-keeper vs.law-breaker. Batman is a representative of the ruling class being confronted by someone who wants to destroy the class system. It would take more than one of them dying to end this warfare. If Batman is killed or unmasked, the same forces remain in power. If the Joker dies, the masses remain. Joker’s goal is then not to destroy Batman, but the system he protects.
One can see that the Joker is more than just an anarchist, or just insane. Neither is he just a criminal seeking power or wealth. He commits more crimes than any other member of the Rogue’s gallery, and one does not do so successfully without intelligence. If power/wealth was what he sought after, not announcing his crimes and not engaging with Batman would grant him that wish quite easily. So what does the Joker seek? As said above, destruction of the system of capitalism and commodification. Such a system is one that gave Bruce Wayne power and wealth and privilege, but only poverty and despair to Joker and everyone else on the bottom wrung of society’s ladder. If such a system is destroyed, there would be no need for a Batman, which would ultimately mean Batman’s freedom as well. The problem arising from that destruction is what a “free” system would look like, and who would guide it? Of course, the Joker is the only one who wants to create and oversee such a system, much like how Lenin took control and became authoritarian rather than a true communist. This was repeated by Stalin as well, who singlehandedly ruled the system. Even if Joker destroyed the “system”, how would he rule? Would not having an enemy to fight be his downfall? Would he succumb to the temptations many other dictators fell for? It is a worthy question, but I would say history has shown that one figure cannot rule a multitude without falling for the trappings of power.
There’s a couple nothing-burger essays here, such as the Obama-Joker, which doesn’t quite add anything to the study of Joker or reveal anything we didn’t know before such as how he can be used as a symbol for a political enemy. It’s entirely skippable.
Now we get into Nietzsche (pg.210)!
The essay starts with the “Superman” (the philosophical one called Übermensch, not the Kryptonian Kal-El), the Übermensch, the “over man” as Nietzsche calls him and the difference between “slave morality” and “master morality”. The Superman is driven by his will to power towards the goal of self-overcoming and constant transformation. That transformation also goes beyond morality, justifying any actions that aid in the pursuit of power. The quest for power and self-mastery is beyond good and evil, either of which can be necessary. Actions that are necessary are deemed “good”, in the Superman logic, and anything else that is not is “bad”. The ends justify the means. Here we start going down a slippery slope, and unfortunately this can be interpreted and justified to do horrible things and unfortunately Nietzsche’s philosophy was used to justify the horrible actions by the Germans in WWII.
Important point to address. Nietzsche was not a Nazi, he was decades dead when the party formed. Nietzsche was very much opposed to Anti-Semitism. Nietzsche was not responsible for the Nazi party using his philosophy. What I find dangerous is how easily the philosophy was adopted to fit their agenda. Doesn’t help that Nietzsche himself also started to grow mentally ill and experience “madness”. Max Whyte, PhD from Cambridge, writes “Baeumler’s depiction of Nietzsche…was certainly one-sided and myopic, but it was neither incoherent nor absurd”. So yes, the Nazi party may not have understood the “Superman” philosophy entirely, but it was close enough that it was adapted basically nation-wide. Was that Nietzsche’s intent? No. But you will see how the author of this essay also molds Nietzsche’s work to more or less defend the statement that The Joker is trying to reach the Superman level and embodies “master morality” and how Batman succumbs to “slave morality”. You can see just from the word associations that The Joker is being glorified and embellished, and (more or less) someone whom should be emulated as the “Superman” is the next step in human evolution through the quest of power and lack of morality.
Around pg.221 is where I think we get “lost in the sauce” a bit with the implications of the Superman/Nitzche philosophy of slave/master morality and the Arkham City video game. The master morality is that nothing should be avoided if it helps you achieve greatness and power, the end justifies the means. Killing, stealing, doesn’t matter if it feeds that endless black hole that is quest for “power”. Slave morality is everything opposite to that, which most of us operate under. Killing people is evil, no matter the reason, laws should be established so that these activities are not just done for “power”, you get the picture. Joker is apparently the embodiment of MASTER morality since he does whatever he wants in the quest for his goal. I guess I see the logic and understand, not sure if I necessarily agree but in the framework I can see the justification.
Let’s mosey on over to the Batman: Arkham City game (BAC). Batman rescues a paramedic, a paramedic who assumed people would need his help. OBVIOUSLY the paramedic is also the embodiment of SLAVE morality, since the paramedic eases pain and suffering. BUT WAIT, Nietzche stated that pain and suffering also the stepping stones to becoming a Superman and becoming closer to Master morality, so the paramedic thus prevents people becoming their best and truest selves and thus does not fit in the Arkham City world. “Pain is something that needs to be experienced and overcome, not something to be bandaged and soothed”, the author states. Uhh…okay? Let’s apply that logic in our modern world. You’re riding your bike somewhere, the bike chain snaps, no speed control and thus you hit something (car/pole/etc) and break your ankle. Call 9-1-1? Why, so you can be rid of the pain and suffering that will ultimately make you closer to the Übermensch? What a weak thought. Obviously, you need to suffer and “overcome” the pain and your messed up ankle (which may or may not be the same again). You follow religious morals or uphold laws? You are obviously a target then for any would-be “Superman” to overcome, by any means necessary, just like The Joker uses any means necessary to overcome Batman. That’s not a dangerous though train to follow at all, right?
Take all of philosophy with a spoonful of salt. It can be a little silly when you apply this to en mass. Can you imagine if everyone just adopted this Superman/Nietzsche philosophy? Anyone can do anything, because they’re not repressing their emotional triggers to violence or internally debating whether something is morally right or wrong? Crime and legality are no longer defined, anyone can be killed at any moment for the sake of power. What a wonderful world that would be, wouldn’t it? Back to page 221 and it’s awkward take on Batman’s slave morality…
This essays rambles on and on about how Batman deceives and lies and holds up his code and how that’s all slave morality and uses the word “ressentiment” about 10 times. He goes on about how Batman uses deception, and in the next paragraph mentions how Joker finally faces Batman in the end as he needs to beat him to have something to overcome (more Ubermensch babble) BUT Joker blows up the ceiling as they’re fighting and buries Batman under rubble…is that not deception? Or is it ignored because Joker can use whatever tools he deems necessary in his quest for besting Batman? So Batman cannot do the same, just because he is labelled as a man of SLAVE morality? I don’t know, the logic is hard to follow in this tumbleweed of an essay, if Batman’s quest is to best the Joker (for whatever reason) then it doesn’t matter if Batman lies and deceives to achieve this goal? Doesn’t the end justify the means, as we’ve heard stated over and over about the Joker? Batman can’t do the same? Just because he is a man of ressentiment? So two people can use the exact same tools, to have the exact same outcome, but due to a different label put on them by Nietzsche’s logic one somehow true to themselves and should be admired, and the other be loathed? Is this also sort of confusing anyone?
Oh boy, wait til this last paragraph. “Through this analysis, in many ways we can see the Joker as a superhero rather than the more traditional superhero, Batman”. Oh boy, this is the same logic someone can apply and justify Hitler’s holocaust. This (to me) is extremely dangerous thinking and justification. Ryan Litsey is a dangerous man, I will be very wary of reading anything by him in the future. I mean you can express your right to free speech all you want, I just think it’s a little dangerous to regard the Joker as someone to emulate by associating him with words like “master” or call a “hero”.
Although there are some interesting points to take, most of these essays are a bit dense and sort of…too in-depth when comparing Batman/Joker’s psyche with Jungian ideas of anima/shadow/trickster, etc. I think we lose the connection to the title of the book when you talk about Hades being a funeral deity and how close that representation is to Hel, Loki’s daughter, and how ALL of those relate to the house of tarot cards analogy in Arkham…I guess I wish there was a bit more editing to have the work connect more and use simpler language to appeal to those who read Batman. It’s easy to get lost in the jargon and just gloss over several paragraphs. There are many run-on sentences.
February 19, 2021
The Joker: A Serious Study of the Clown Prince of Crime is a collection of theoretical essays about the titular and iconic villain from DC comics, television shows, movies, and so forth. The volume is edited by Robert Moses Peaslee and Robert G. Weiner and features fifteen essays by various contributors. As an avid fan of the character, I overall really enjoyed reading this volume; many of the essays helped me see The Joker in a new light and maybe even understand him a little bit better, if that is even possible. (His mutable identity, after all, makes him the perfect subject of a volume like this.) There are definitely a few pieces that I did not enjoy too much, however. The intro (written by the two aforementioned editors), for example, really does nothing more than briefly outline what each essay will argue and discuss, and it is honestly tedious and unnecessary. I was also quite honestly a tad annoyed by the second essay featured in the book - "Does The Joker have Six-Inch Teeth?" written by Roy T. Cook, an essay that is ultimately much ado about nothing. Cook first argues, for example, that pictorial depictions should not, in cases involving The Joker, be treated as metaphorical representations but should rather be taken literally and at face value, but he then closes the essay by effectively asserting the opposite. At the very end of the essay, in fact, he even closes with, "...the answer to the question... is: who knows" (Cook 31)? I just walked away from that essay feeling like I took absolutely nothing away from it. I am also not a big fan of David Ray Carter's essay "Episodes of Madness: Representations of The Joker in Television and Animation" because there isn't really much of an argument made until the very end, in which Carter makes the case that The Joker is more accurately depicted when bound by content restrictions. He uses Under the Red Hood as an example that sacrifices The Joker's more complex nuances in favor of more graphic violence, but not only do I find his argument flawed (what about Nicholson's and Ledger's Jokers?), but it takes him forever to arrive at it. Most of the essay is just listing off the many televised and animated appearances of the character. A couple of other essays, such as "The Obama-Joker: Assembling a Populist Monster" by Emmanuelle Wessels and Mark Martinez and "Making Sense Squared: Iteration and Synthesis in Grant Morrison's Joker" by Mark P. Williams," are fairly difficult to read because they must be trudged through; "The Obama-Joker" is very dry and tedious, and "Making Sense Squared" is overly stuffy and wordy. I, as I said, however, really enjoyed reading this volume overall, as a majority of the essays are very interesting and fun to read. Eric Garneau's essay cleverly titled "Lady Haha: Performativity, Super-sanity, and the Mutability of Identity," for example, especially appealed to me because not only am I big fan of The Joker, but I am also a big fan of Lady Gaga, and the essay compares the two in how they don't seem to have fixed identities. (As a somewhat similar example, Kim Owczarski's essay "'Why So Serious?': Warner Bros.' Use of The Joker in Marketing The Dark Knight" likens the transmedia approach to promoting the 2008 film The Dark Knight to the approach similarly taken by the ABC television series Lost, a series which I vehemently enjoyed during its run.) Kristin M. S. Bezio's "Playing (with) the Villain: Critical Play and The Joker-as-Guide in Batman: Arkham Asylum" essay, which discusses The Joker ultimately serving as the player's guide in the video game mentioned in the title, is another highlight, and one of my absolute favorites is "More than the Hood Was Red: The Joker as Marxist" by Richard D. Heldenfels. This is one that, based on the title, I honestly was not expecting to enjoy, but I found myself very surprised. Not only did I find it interesting, but I also found myself in vehement agreement throughout. Throughout the fifteen essays, there tends to be a lot of common ground; one of the major arguments that persists throughout the volume, for example, is that The Joker and Batman have a codependent relationship, that they need each other, and while I had already felt the same way prior to reading this book, this book helped further explain and make sense of that relationship. If, like me, you are a big fan of The Joker as a character, then I definitely recommend this book to you, but don't expect a light beach read; as I said, a few of the essays are a bit tedious and difficult to get through (which is why I spent as much time as I did reading this book).
March 2, 2019
I love Batman, but even more than that, I love his villains. With that in mind, going for this book was a given. It was inevitable. In a series of essays, grouped by general theme, we examine the aspects of The Joker. Not just the personality as given to us in the portrayals and depictions, but also the nuance of why he ended up a certain way, why certain marketing things work, the importance of his relationship with Batman... there is just so much. These are serious essays with an academic feel, not just glorified fan pieces. So go into the book with that knowledge. I thought it was wonderful and absolutely worth the read.
February 13, 2019
Penelitian tentang salah satu tokoh penjahat di komik DC, the Joker. Di sini, kita akan mengetahui bagaimana hubungan antara the Joker dengan situasi politik di Amerika Serikat, hubungan the Joker dengan film 'The Dark Knight' karya Nolan, dll. Jika kau penggemar the Joker, kau bisa membaca buku ini untuk menambah referensi dan pemahaman.
May 2, 2020
This book was a beyond epic meta analysis of the joker from different perspectives giving a sense of his fluidity and madness. I lovvvvvved it. Highly recommended to anyone who likes more abstract reflections instead of just staying at the content level.
January 12, 2023
Excellent scholarly analyses of The Joker from various academic perspectives. It was a pleasure to narrate the forthcoming audiobook version.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews