😞 One wild arguement I saw is it's wrong to say J made Jason more interesting because " it implies trauma makes people more complex, therefore it's good". These are characters and trauma does in fact make them more interesting??? Yes literature has impact on the real world but as a genre superhero comics would not work without this. ( Almost) No one would tune into Bruce Wayne economics class 101. That J plotline made Jason more recognisable- non fans literally know him mainly for it, individualised him further and got him more fans, and got his fans to care even more about him because J is fucked beyond belief, and gave Jason an overarching mission. Alas, J is not some evil entity possessing writer's minds, but a very convenient and efficient device to push these characters to their limits. Why would you want that gone, I don't get it. To hate him as a character based on his morality is more than valid( Jason beating him up is some good shit), but to hate the existence of him as a character is strange imo. He drives the plot forward. ( And carries archetypes and universal themes therefore is bound to stay as a relevant and popular character, but that's another topic)

Some things are just deep emotional gut reactions, I think. This applies to real life as well. You just might really not vibe with a person, or with a character, and they might get on your nerves even though there's little rational reason for it. It doesn't really matter to that emotional side of you that a character might have a deep convoluted history, or is very important to the narrative. And I do believe this is a perfectly normal thing, disliking a character doesn't necessitate a reason. You can just say you don't personally resonate with them and move on. I only think pure, vitriolic hatred raises many questions, because a lot of the time it also involves treating the character as if they're a real person, and/or also hating the fans of that character. After all, since one can't harass a fictional character (on account of them not existing), the next best option is harassing the real fans (who sadly are within this mortal plane).

This all ties into the first thing you mention, Anon -- that argument regarding trauma denotes an inability to differentiate between reality and fiction, and a type of black-and-white moral thinking that's hard to combat. Conflict drives a story forward. It's simply a narrative device, and of course, traumatic events will be part of that conflict. What made Bruce Wayne become Batman, the main character we all follow? The death of his parents. What prompted Jack Oswald White to become the Joker, his main antagonist? The death of his wife and unborn child. What made Dick Grayson take on the Robin mantle? The death of his parents. What prompted Jason Todd to become the Red Hood? His death at Joker's hands.

And so it goes. At their core, Batman comics especially are about dealing with trauma. There's horrible events happening in canon all the time, but that doesn't mean the writers or the fans think that trauma is good. An adult story is not meant to teach you moral lessons; you're supposed to bring your own critical thinking to the table. Joker happened to be the vehicle through which Jason underwent major conflict, which then became a turning point in his evolution and made him into a fascinating anti-hero. (Not even going to delve into the interesting aspect of Jason's death that is the fact fans voted for him to get killed off.) As you say, characters are, at their core, tools in a story. And again, anyone can just dislike Joker, but the intense wave of hatred towards him specifically is... well, it isn't entirely about him. He's become a fandom scapegoat in a lot of ways, and a popular method to signal loud and clear that you're denouncing the "evil toxic serial killer" for many fans. But that's a whole other can of worms that I've gotten into elsewhere already.