That is a can of worms about on par with a leftist asking “In what order should I read theory”? There a 1001 correct answers, and there is no exact timeline about how you can delve into the character.
I have a decent bit of superhero knowledge and I dive into it every now and then, but I will not claim that I am some absolute authority on this subject and that I can give you a definitive list.
I will however recommend “Batman: Year One” as it is a good place to start with the character and that is considered one of the best comics of all time.
For a Batman/Joker story I would recommend the “Killing Joke” series, but I will say that is is fairly mature in its content, as it really attempts to delve into the Joker’s psychology as a tragic but evil character.
The Batman stories in the “Flashpoint” Series is fun as a side story as it follows a world where the Flash makes one change and alters all of history, and Batman ends up being Thomas Wayne (the dad) rather then Bruce Wayne (the son), and this is a much more aggressive and violent Batman, with a pretty shady moral code as Thomas goes full capitalist and is pretty evil.
Not begrudging your interests, but I think this post kind of summarizes why I have never been able to read any western comics.
I like really concrete beginning/end points for fictional media. I like to be able to say “This is book 1, I can start here. This is book 4, it’s the last one”. I also hate jumping into any series in the middle, even if it is absolutely designed for it. Anytime I have thought about trying to read any western comics (or warhammer on the same note) it just seems like a massive ambigious undertaking.
“Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?”
I totally agree with the sentiment, but when does one know that one knows enough though? How deep does one have to dig? How much does one have to research to be able to contribute?
Mao mentions the essentials of a topic. He isn’t saying “you must be an expert on something before you can talk about it” rather “You must understand it before you talk about it.”
Someone who knows nothing about a topic cannot contribute to a discussion on it, but someone who knows at least a little still can.
Look at the libs that wander in here sometimes, they are the perfect example of “talking nonsense” that Mao describes. They contribute nothing, because the things they say are said out of complete ignorance of the topic.
Basically, you could sum it up as “Check yourself, before you wreck yourself.” Examine your own understanding of a topic to work out if you do actually know something about it, or if you are just spitting hot air. If you think you do, but others inform you that you don’t, that’s not a bad thing, it’s an opportunity for learning.
Harry Potter is the champion of doing this as Harry manages to support a status quo that literally does nothing but work against him.
It’s like JK insists a corrupt system is the only possible system and is perfect because some bad apple will eventually trip over some rule or clause that saves the day at the 11th hour so… “It’s all good!”
deleted by creator
I understand, but the villain doesn’t lead with “Let’s stop the destruction of nature”, they lead with “Everyone should die”.
I don’t think Poison Ivy ever actually makes a compelling argument for conservationism and anti-capitalism. They just really REALLY hate people.
deleted by creator
That is a can of worms about on par with a leftist asking “In what order should I read theory”? There a 1001 correct answers, and there is no exact timeline about how you can delve into the character.
I have a decent bit of superhero knowledge and I dive into it every now and then, but I will not claim that I am some absolute authority on this subject and that I can give you a definitive list.
I will however recommend “Batman: Year One” as it is a good place to start with the character and that is considered one of the best comics of all time.
For a Batman/Joker story I would recommend the “Killing Joke” series, but I will say that is is fairly mature in its content, as it really attempts to delve into the Joker’s psychology as a tragic but evil character.
The Batman stories in the “Flashpoint” Series is fun as a side story as it follows a world where the Flash makes one change and alters all of history, and Batman ends up being Thomas Wayne (the dad) rather then Bruce Wayne (the son), and this is a much more aggressive and violent Batman, with a pretty shady moral code as Thomas goes full capitalist and is pretty evil.
The Long Halloween is also pretty good!
deleted by creator
Not begrudging your interests, but I think this post kind of summarizes why I have never been able to read any western comics.
I like really concrete beginning/end points for fictional media. I like to be able to say “This is book 1, I can start here. This is book 4, it’s the last one”. I also hate jumping into any series in the middle, even if it is absolutely designed for it. Anytime I have thought about trying to read any western comics (or warhammer on the same note) it just seems like a massive ambigious undertaking.
Warhammer at this point have like 1000 or more books.
deleted by creator
Can you please share that quote from Mao?
“No investigation, no right to speak”.
“Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?”
-Mao in Oppose Book Worship
I totally agree with the sentiment, but when does one know that one knows enough though? How deep does one have to dig? How much does one have to research to be able to contribute?
Mao mentions the essentials of a topic. He isn’t saying “you must be an expert on something before you can talk about it” rather “You must understand it before you talk about it.”
Someone who knows nothing about a topic cannot contribute to a discussion on it, but someone who knows at least a little still can. Look at the libs that wander in here sometimes, they are the perfect example of “talking nonsense” that Mao describes. They contribute nothing, because the things they say are said out of complete ignorance of the topic.
Basically, you could sum it up as “Check yourself, before you wreck yourself.” Examine your own understanding of a topic to work out if you do actually know something about it, or if you are just spitting hot air. If you think you do, but others inform you that you don’t, that’s not a bad thing, it’s an opportunity for learning.
Poison Ivy is malthusian.
Harry Potter is the champion of doing this as Harry manages to support a status quo that literally does nothing but work against him.
It’s like JK insists a corrupt system is the only possible system and is perfect because some bad apple will eventually trip over some rule or clause that saves the day at the 11th hour so… “It’s all good!”