What is: The Riddler? A Poser

Surprise, surprise: Tom King screwed up the Riddler with character assassination (One Bad Day: The Riddler).  Tom King being the best at what he does (character assassination), he also managed to do so to Batman at the same time. So let's recalibrate with my definitions of what the Riddler is.

The Riddler is theatrical.

This may seem redundant, since he's a Batman villain; aren't they all theatrical? But think about it; Catwoman; Scarecrow; Penguin; Two-Face.  Thematic? Yes. Dramatic? At times.  But not in-universe theatrical; they don't really 'put on a show.' The Riddler, on the other hand...

I bet he put on the "Jeopardy" thinking music.

He's corny, too.

Even Judd Winick gets it.

The Riddler is an intellectual not a goof.

Most creators get this right; it's hard not to.

I mean: even Tom King got that part right.

It's an essential part of his characterization. The unfortunate result is that most writers can't write the Riddler because they are not sufficiently intellectual; it's pretty daunting to be asked to write a villain who comes up with puzzles that stump BATMAN. So, as discussed in the post linked above, they cop out and just make him goofy.

The Riddler is not about solving problems; he is about posing them.

Not to put too fine a point on it but: He's not called "The Solver"; he's "The Riddler".  This is why all those interpretations where the Riddler reforms (to a some degree, at least) and occupies himself with solving mysteries are ... incorrect.  The Riddler already knows that--given time and opportunity--he can solve any riddle. He'll cheat if he has to to SOLVE a mystery.  

It's part of his origin, after all.

But the Riddler would never cheat by giving you a mystery that can't be solved. 

The Riddler is an inversion of the Batman, in this respect.  The Riddler is a criminal who creates mysteries for his own sake; Batman is a detective who solves them for the sake of others.  

The Riddler isn't crippled by a 'compulsion' to give clues.  

I remember when this idea was introduced (well, I remember when I bought the comic wherein it was).    As I've mentioned before, Golden Age writers got what made villains VILLAINS, rather than mere criminals.

Well, yes, presentation; and the Riddler certainly has that and it's part of what I mean.  But what I meant was classic villains are not minimalists. They are not trying to do the least they can do, to just score some swag under the radar, and not get caught; that's what criminals do.  

Villains steal things because those things are thematically appropriate, not simply things that are valuable. Villains don't always hide their crimes; they let you know that they did (or, sometimes, even what they are about to do).  Villains aren't avoiding challenge, they are looking for a challenge. Villains are performance artists; they are putting on a show, even if they are the only audience.  

The Riddler is a true villain. He's not "compelled" to give clues; he chooses to. It's the point of what he's doing; the crimes are just a macguffin.  The Riddler's M.O. isn't a fatal flaw; it's a distinguishing feature.

Another one of the many things Tom King does not understand.

The Riddler doesn't kill ... gratuitously.

Certainly, the Riddler WILL kill: He loves his Batman-deathtraps.

It's part of his origin, after all.

But it's never the goal.  In fact, it's generally not among his repertoire.  Why? Well, it's never stated explicitly, but it's a pretty easy mystery to solve.  The Riddler doesn't kill for (essentially) the same reason that Batman doesn't:  it's too easy.  

Sure, he might kill you accidentally, but that's your own poor luck.

Oh, sure, Batman has "a moral code" whereas the Riddler's has "rules of the game".  But the Riddler, as a truly classic villain, has to impose limits on himself, and allowing himself to kill would spoil his game; it's too powerful an advantage.  

Batman doesn't use a gun because it would make killing too easy.
It's part of his origin, after all.

So naturally Tom King in One Bad Day: The Riddler not only has the Riddler become willing to kill, his character arc for Batman has HIM becoming willing to kill, too. It all makes perfect sense...if you're Tom King, the kind of writer who's only interest is in 'taking characters where they've never been taken before". 

Well, when a character's been around as long as these have, if they haven't been taken to a particular "somewhere", it's probably because it's a terrible idea, not because you're the First Writer Brillant Enough to Think Of It, Tom.

Peter Milligan went there first, anyway.