I was particularly impressed with Moore's exposing of Batman and Joker's duality. Not in themselves, but in each other. Moore has said that Batman and the Joker are mirror images of each other. He explores this by Joker repeating that one sane man can become insane, as he did, with just "one bad day." We're given a backstory on Joker (not sure if he's exactly a reliable narrator, but the story of Jack and his attempt to support his wife and unborn child as a comedian carved out a piece of the Batman universe that few have tackled), and we see how his nihilistic philosophy came to be. Joker even speculates that Batman must've suffered from a "one bad day" experience as well and that is why he is the way he is. Is he hot or cold? Joker uses Commissioner Gordon as a guinea pig to test this worldview. After shooting and paralyzing Gordon's daughter, he imprisons Gordon in a hedonistic fun house where nude images of his wounded daughter are displayed in an attempt to break his spirit. And ultimately, Gordon defies him, refusing to break and revealing the overall theme of the piece that people are strong and can withstand trauma in hopes for a greater good.
But what I found to be even more impressive with this work was Moore's commentary on it. Ever since it's publication, Moore has been critical of his contribution to Batman. In the 2003 edition of The Extraordinary Works of Alan Moore, Moore stated, "[Batman: The Killing Joke] was clumsy, misjudged and had no real human importance. It was just about a couple of licensed DC characters that didn't really relate to the real world in any way."
Interesting. Overly critical perhaps, but profound all the same.
This artistic vision that Moore has (or lack their of according to him), which I would consider to be anything expressed to reach people and connect to a pure, human experience, is relevant to popular genre writing as it is often the basis for the argument of whether popular fiction is considered "literature" in the proper sense of the word, or just pieces of fiction in the lowest form of the word. These people, mostly literati, argue that popular fiction writers (more so in sci-fi/fantasy/horror genres) in creating fanciful worlds and fantastical situations for their stories, lose sight of what art is supposed to do: connect the reader to a truly unique, human experience, not just spin a tale. They quip that the fanciful elements of popular genres are only a distraction, distancing the relationship of the work and reader. It's a high brow sentiment but the argument undoubtably has merit. But the argument can also go both ways. Pop fiction writers and critics (and fans) argue that literary works are often too focused on artistry, whether that be theme or symbolism, and because of this the plot and characters suffer and are left in the background which makes the experience a dull one.
So, where would you draw the line? Where is the line drawn between works of guilty pleasures and works of art?
This question seems important, and one that is not nearly asked enough. I feel like there is an attitude from popular writers that literary works are "snooty," and because of that they are somehow lesser. Meanwhile, the literati argue that popular genre works are silly children's stories. But any that believe this, on both sides, are ignorant. It is not "snooty" or arrogant to attempt to transcend the page and reach people on a higher level as the Great American Novelist attempts to do. Just as it is not silly to also attempt this artistic vision but in the sky on the back of a dragon. If a human connection is made, the work is art of the only sense of the word.
Think of many of your favorite works that made you want to be a popular genre writer. For me, it was Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time, which whether you love it or hate it, does transcend the page into a unique, human experience. Would I love the series just as much if I were to cut out all of the battles, and magic, and fantastical lands? No I wouldn't because I enjoy fantastical elements in stories. But even if I did, I would still be able to connect to it. Which is a valuable lesson in itself. We, as popular writers, can give the readers the best of both worlds. We can give them worlds and powers that cannot exist in our reality. We can make them the champion of a kingdom with only the turn of the page. But I agree with Moore, that that should only add to the essential human experience that must exist first and foremost. This doesn't change no matter the time period, the world, the race, the situation; the connection between reader and the piece should be one and the same.
This makes me think of my own writing. Of course all writers attempt to connect with readers. That's why we read, right? To embody another person for a few hundred pages, experience what they experience, triumph in what they triumph. But what about after that? Can we make readers take away a truly unique, human experience? Even if that human experience is set on an alien planet? That's not to say is it realistic. Realism must be achieved for even a story to work on its basest level. I mean, are we trying to connect to people and give them an experience that they can only get when reading your book? Do we all attempt this, or do we simply turn up our noses and just give them a show?
No comments:
Post a Comment