After my last post concerning plot holes, in which I had (stupidly, might I add) chosen to remark that it was silly to have Joker tell two (almost three, mind you) different tales of how he got his scars, warranted me 25 replies to contradict me, I have opted to open up a thread about this particular discussion. After all, it's easier then responding to every single one, and I am lazy yet too polite to voluntarily watch these replies go unanswered.
Anyway, here it is:
Before I go any further though, understand that I am indeed a Batman comic book fan (as well as a Green Lantern fan, but that's neither here nor there), and I have read every single issue since Batman R.I.P by the ludicrous Grant Morrison, who genius is only surpassed by his own craziness.
But anyways, back to the point:
I find that a perfectly reasonably argument, that is of course until you realize that the man is executing a plan that would shy even the most sadistic of the Ozymandias fans. He's clearly a cold, calculating serial murderer, who's master plan(s) is enough to challenge Batman time and time again. Pretending that this man can't tell which of the both stories is true, and which isn't, is like saying that a frog can't tell a waterlily from a tea cup.
But like I said, there is absolutely no reason to have given two different tales. Some people have said that it was to mess with the victim's heads, but I can't figure out how that works. We basically have a situation where he tells two tales to two entirely different people who have absolutely no link in between them, in the offset chance that they might eventually cross paths, strike up a conversation, touch on the subject of Joker, and then exchange their stories regarding his lip scars. Oh no, wait, he killed the mob boss. Never mind then -.-
My point being that I see no purpose behind the difference in his made-up stories. I'm sure the writers were trying to prove a special point in doing so, but I can quite grasp it.
Anyway, here it is:
Many of the smarter replies (both of them), have pointed out that the Joker is simply schizophrenic, delusional, or crazy enough to make up his own history. Which I thoroughly understand.The Seldom Seen Kid said:
Before I go any further though, understand that I am indeed a Batman comic book fan (as well as a Green Lantern fan, but that's neither here nor there), and I have read every single issue since Batman R.I.P by the ludicrous Grant Morrison, who genius is only surpassed by his own craziness.
But anyways, back to the point:
I find that a perfectly reasonably argument, that is of course until you realize that the man is executing a plan that would shy even the most sadistic of the Ozymandias fans. He's clearly a cold, calculating serial murderer, who's master plan(s) is enough to challenge Batman time and time again. Pretending that this man can't tell which of the both stories is true, and which isn't, is like saying that a frog can't tell a waterlily from a tea cup.
Blimey, that was tortured. 
But like I said, there is absolutely no reason to have given two different tales. Some people have said that it was to mess with the victim's heads, but I can't figure out how that works. We basically have a situation where he tells two tales to two entirely different people who have absolutely no link in between them, in the offset chance that they might eventually cross paths, strike up a conversation, touch on the subject of Joker, and then exchange their stories regarding his lip scars. Oh no, wait, he killed the mob boss. Never mind then -.-
My point being that I see no purpose behind the difference in his made-up stories. I'm sure the writers were trying to prove a special point in doing so, but I can quite grasp it.
