Superman Has Super Obligations

[HAMMER FRENZY]

http://www.bamkapow.com/bk-feature-why-superman-will-always-suck-1189-p.html

This article is a little old, but I notice that more than a few folks have pointed to it stating that it is very much in line with their view on the man of steel. I was thinking about Superman this morning on the way to work and asking myself how I would feel if he were real, and he did what Superman does. I was thinking that it would be interesting to see what you guys think about Superman.

I personally love the character.

[Ironwood]

I agree with most of that article and it's kinda hard to argue against.

Seriously, ask yourself WHY you like the character (and, hey, then tell us !)

My feelings on it crystalised while watching Smallville :  That was a show that quickly went into Green Rock territory and had to actively fight against itself to stop doing that shit.  Since it's boring and retarded.

Superman just isn't that interesting.  Indeed, Red Son is the most interesting of the Superman comics I've ever read because it takes the idea of Superman to the logical conclusion.  (In kinda the same way Superman 5 the film did, even though it was total shite.)

Anyways.

[rk47]

That's nice article. I've felt the same way, never picking up his comics (born in the 80s) cause his premise is a little boring: nigh invulnerable guy, with super everything,except to green rock. OK so Kingdom Come tried to do things differently, but as always he's portrayed as a terrible leader, having the power but not the ability to make decisions. Batman always outshine him in any form and the best thing is that he's human just like us. That makes Batman more attractive and easier to relate to. (work stress, dealing with people who don't understand you etc)

[Trippy]

Back when DC had their equivalent of Marvel's "What If?" series they had one with Superman becoming the President of the US (which included a trip to the Supreme Court to allow him to be a candidate) and basically took things to their logical conclusions: solved the world energy issues by setting up microwave satellites, stopped all world conflicts, etc., etc. Guy Gardner as a Green Lantern opposed Supes for reasons I can't remember but of course Superman defeated him. At the end Hal Jordan offers Superman Guy's Power Ring but of course Superman gives the "absolute power corrupts absolutely" speech and refuses the ring.

[Ironwood]

Yeah, which is why Red Son is much more interesting;  it admits that the problem is People.

 

[HAMMER FRENZY]

This kinda stuff is exactly why I like Superman though. It seems that we all have this model that a superhero must fit into. They must be powerful but have some sort of weakness or weaknesses that make for interesting story telling. They need to have some sort of concept of right and wrong that is challenged by situations in which what is just and unjust is not so clearly defined. It seems like Superman breaks away from these things. In a world where the super hero paradigm is so rigidly defined, Superman says, "now this is happening." We seem to blame Superman for all this lameness, and in a way that is why he is cool. If he really existed we would feel the same way, out of jealousy and contempt. He would be a god amongst men, with all the powers of a god minus omnisciense. He has the power to essentially do anything, but he doesn't have the power to know what will happen if he does. By saving earth he is in essence responsible for it, how it grows, how it advances, but he has to wrestle with the concept of godlike obligation. Because he can, should he?

We tend to look at Superman like he is an alien who chose to manipulate earth and humans to his liking, but that is BS. He was essentially born here for all he knew (for some time at least) and upon learning about his powers he was just a human with great power, but he is not at fault  for what has been gifted with, but he is responsible for what he does with it. The only way that he could be absolved of his obligation to Earth would be to do nothing from the get go. to only be Clark Kent and not interfere with the natural order of things, but by using his powers for what he thought was good, he opened up a floodgate of obligations that could only be met by using his power. He is a very tragic character in a way because he is just you and I with all this power and no idea what to do with it aside from what we think is right.

Unfortunately in doing what superman thinks is right he unintentionally set a presidence for what people should expect from him. Mankind is faced with the closest manifestation of God. Because they are not in his situation they don't think about what he lacks, and only what he is capable of, and because they can put a name, a face, an identity to that which can alter circumstance, people tend to criticize and  find fault with what they feel should ultimately be looking out for their best interests. We forget exactly what Superman is and the huge job he has before him and how he can only act upon what he thinks is best, and that may not always be in the best interests of some people. He deal with the greater good at an godlike scale. 

This is why I think he is interesting. He is on the other side of the god complex. As readers we can even try to have an opinion but because he is a god, we really can't fathom what he can and can't do, or what we would do in the same situation. We get to see a flawed god stomp through creation, trying preserve what he knows and loves while trying not to affect it at such a deep level as to radically change change what is there. Superman's weakness is he is god, except he has no idea what he is doing and is ultimately accountable only to himself and those who simultaneously need him and hold contempt for him.  

[rk47]

Oh well looking at the world today, how much help would superman be in the Gaza strip if he starts shooting down rockets with his heatvision? 
It just puts a lot of nation power balance out of whack. Something to the effect of Dr Manhattan from Watchmen.

[Merusk]

The best summation of Superman I've seen was from a comedian (Seinfeld?)  Clark Kent is how Superman sees humans.  Cowardly, weak, physically flawed and pathetic creatures.  Supes can eat a dick.

[Rishathra]

I think you mean Kill Bill 2.

[Raging Turtle]

walloftext

As mentioned, Watchmen did all this about a hundred times better. 

But then I always liked Cyclops so what do I know   

[Velorath]

Any character is only as good as the person doing the writing.  That article is more about "here are the common holes Superman writers seem to fall into" rather than "here's why the character doesn't work", but the author doesn't seem to realize it.

[Ironwood]

I disagree with that.  But I'm fairly drunk.  Like, very drunk.  I may explain later.

[Velorath]

In fact having read through the whole article now, it's just complete crap which in some spots seems to make up its own evidence, and at others brings up issues which apply to superheroes as a whole.  Then it just goes off into some strange Batman is better than Superman tangent.

[HaemishM]

Haven't read the whole article but my two cents: as a writer, I would WANT to take on Superman, because I think it'd be the most challenging writing job ever. Let's face it, you have the problem of a protagonist that humans can't empathize with not just because he's not human, but he has no physical human weaknesses. You end up either having to face him up against things so powerful they could destroy the Earth with a blink, or you have some kind of writing device that allows the villain to damage or otherwise threaten Superman, whether that be magic or kryptonite or removing his powers. Or worse, you attack him through the people around him and his supporting cast has serious stereotyping problems of their own. I've always felt his support cast was one of the weakest in comics.

[UnSub]

That wasn't an article, that was a polemic why Batman can beat up Superman.

I've got no overwhelming fondness for Superman as a character, but that really was just a fanboi rant. Superman having powers is as much of a happy accident as Spider-Man (planet with a yellow sun) - a contrivance for the 'why' behind the powers.

As for "it's easier for Superman not to kill than Batman", I'd argue that it takes more control on Superman's part. After all, he can just melt someone into ash. Or rule the world by virtue of being the most powerful being here. Having that much power and not using it to make himself into a god on earth is a big thing. Meanwhile, Batman trained (using the billions of dollars he was born into to support him) to make himself something bad guys piss their pants about.

All that said: it's still a Versus argument and it depends on where you source your information. Superman has beaten Batman before too.

[Triforcer]

Superman irl would be bogged down in partisan politics in roughly three seconds.  Stop the missiles raining down on Gaza or not? Destroy every poppy field in Afghanistan (condemning farmers to starvation) or not (contributing to drug deaths worldwide)?  Fly over countries where 70% of people are malnourished, a brutal dictator is in charge, and kill him (possibly setting off even WORSE chaos) or not?  Submit completely to the orders of the U.S. government and be used as a tool of their policy, or be condemned as a traitor and criminal the moment you do something to save people that the current president doesn't want you to do? 

Anyone with those powers who wasn't Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and MLK combined x100 would find themselves saying "shit, I should just run this all and make everyone behave, people are starving and oppressed and even the democracies are weak and stupid" in under a year.  The fact that Superman hasn't done that is his best quality by far. 

[Lantyssa]

I was never fond of Superman.  They're going to stay away from the political stories where he has to make a choice that fails in some fashion no matter what he does, and action stories with him are pointless.

[Tannhauser]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Man_Who_Has_Everything


Hands down the greatest Superman story ever told.  Ever.

[Velorath]

I disagree with that.  But I'm fairly drunk.  Like, very drunk.  I may explain later.

I'm interested in hearing your explaination.

[Triforcer]

Also, I don't know where this "Superman is a right-wing Rethuglican" stuff like in that article always keeps coming from (yeah, I remember the Dark Knight Returns, but that isn't the mainstream interpretation).  Batman is always leaving a carefully multi-racial pile of thugs laying in a bloody heap, without the least regard for how the socioeconomic pressures of a capitalist-elite society forced the helpless thugs into a life of crime.  He also calls them names sometimes, and I'm sure being called "scum" or "garbage" hurts their self-esteem.  Superman, by contrast, usually just ties people up and flies away without bruising them at all.  Who is more ultra-right-wing, again- the vigilante whose physical beatings display a shocking disregard for the thug's constitutional rights, or the guy that just ties him up? 

[Hindenburg]

Who is more ultra-right-wing, again- the vigilante whose physical beatings display a shocking disregard for the thug's constitutional rights, or the guy that just ties him up? 

Frank Castle.

[HaemishM]

Batman is the ultimate right-wing fascist villain. Superman is the pretty public face of right-wing authoritarianism, with the ability to spy on anyone and stop a crime before it happens. Although, if you go back to Superman's Siegel & Schuster roots, he's a lot more left-wing than he is these days, taking on coruption capitalists and the Nazis as much as crooks.

[Ironwood]

Who is more ultra-right-wing, again- the vigilante whose physical beatings display a shocking disregard for the thug's constitutional rights, or the guy that just ties him up? 

Frank Castle.

Dammit, in before me.

I think he meant DC tho.   

[Yegolev]

I disagree with that.  But I'm fairly drunk.  Like, very drunk.  I may explain later.

Don't explain.  That never works out for me.

I don't care for Superman for the reasons given.  His original creation is interesting what with the whole Moses-beats-up-Nazis thing, but doesn't seem to have legs IMO.  I may agree with Velorath about it being the writers' faults (who else?), but I'm not entirely buying into the "Superman requires Superwriter" thing.  It's not like writing good stories for Batman or Spiderman is easy-mode... or is it?  Is it a better story if you write something fantastic around a main character who is actually a one-dimensional douchebag?

[HaemishM]

It's easier to come up with ideas for how to threaten Batman - just shoot him, or knife him, or blow him up or etc. etc. Superman isn't threatened by any of that. So creating a conflict that isn't fuck stupid takes a little more thought.

[Velorath]

It's not like writing good stories for Batman or Spiderman is easy-mode... or is it? 

No, and as such, there are just as many shit Batman and Spider-man stories out there as there are Superman.  Aquaman... most people agree he's a shit character, and yet Peter David had a critically acclaimed run on Aquaman for a few years back in the early/mid-nineties.  I never gave a shit about Green Lantern or Captain America as characters, but now I'm buying both books because the writers presented the characters in a way that appealed to me.  Hell, the reason I checked out Green Lantern is because I was already reading Geoff Johns' work on JSA, which was a group full of characters I would have found boring in most circumstances.

Grant Morrison's All Star Superman is getting great reviews.  I got the first issue on Free Comics Day a year or so back, and though I didn't stick with it, it is pretty well written.  By the end of the first issue, Superman is dying from a threat that has nothing to do with Kryptonite, Magic, or a savage beating from Doomsday.  It presents a very traditional take on Superman, but it works.

[UnSub]

Superman fails as as concept over time for the same reason all long-running comic book characters do - they aren't allowed to rest. Every month at least one new issue has to come out, nothing is allowed to change in the long-term and it ends up being one big soap opera for geeks.

Periodic Superman stories can work so much better than continuous ones - Morrison's All Star Superman is a good example of what you can do when you just focus on writing a good story for Superman, not worrying about if it fits exactly with modern continuity (I've only read TPB 1 though).

There have also been some excellent stories written about pseudo-Superman characters - Alan Moore's run on Supreme was all about deconstructing Superman back to his roots and how that created the character and some of the Mr Majestic stories are also very good (the first TPB - the ongoing series kinda took Majestic down a peg).

[Merusk]

I think you mean Kill Bill 2.

Hm.. Maybe. I don't recall where I got it, only that I agreed with it.

Comics, as a medium, fail me for the same reason long-running TV series fail for me.  To keep the audience they always have to stay in the same place.  Very little can change, there is no real drama or reflection of reality.  If you kill off Superman, Batman, Aquaman or whomever else you end the series.  You've killed off Mulder, or Scully, or had Hawkeye blow his brains out in the middle of the ER after some Korean kid drops a grenade in post op.  Game over, you lost a chunk of your audience.  So you know things will always turn around in the end, no matter how dire.  There is no true risk, no true end. (Unless one of the actors quits.  )

It's one of the reasons I enjoy Graphic Novels and literature but can't stand monthly comics and modern fantasy serials.  It's about milking a product, not telling a story.

[HAMMER FRENZY]

Superman fails as as concept over time for the same reason all long-running comic book characters do - they aren't allowed to rest. Every month at least one new issue has to come out, nothing is allowed to change in the long-term and it ends up being one big soap opera for geeks.

Periodic Superman stories can work so much better than continuous ones - Morrison's All Star Superman is a good example of what you can do when you just focus on writing a good story for Superman, not worrying about if it fits exactly with modern continuity (I've only read TPB 1 though).

There have also been some excellent stories written about pseudo-Superman characters - Alan Moore's run on Supreme was all about deconstructing Superman back to his roots and how that created the character and some of the Mr Majestic stories are also very good (the first TPB - the ongoing series kinda took Majestic down a peg).

Things happen once a month in a 6 issue arc most of the time. So technically, in a year a superhero will have 2 major adventures. I think that is pretty fucking modest for a hero to be honest. Regardless, all the aforementioned characters are perfectly good characters, it all comes down to that for example, there may have been less great superman stories than batman stories, but that is because Batman seems to be a much easier character to right for. Superman is, in my opinion, one of the hardest characters to write for simply because you have to constantly find ways to break the character down. (and that could be tough to do in a creative and interesting way.)

[Ironwood]

I disagree with that.  But I'm fairly drunk.  Like, very drunk.  I may explain later.

I'm interested in hearing your explaination.

I don't think it's really fair to say 'That's the common holes the writers fall into'.  Sure, lazy writers will take the green rock way out and brilliant writers will come up with moral and intellectual challenges for the indestructible Man of Steel.  You may even enjoy them.

But for me, they're actually just as much of a fucking cop out as the Green rock.  They're totally artificial challenges.  A mutant on his chest that's giving him a MIND FUCK is just as much of a cop out as 'Oh Noes' Another Green Rock'.  It's just taking the percieved weakness of that indestructible character and fucking with him.

Similarly, that's another reason that the chap never works for me ;  it's always his fucking colleagues that are in peril.  And it's always him that's mindfucked that his colleagues are in peril.  But that's entirely artificial also since he's one of THE BEST secret identities on the fucking planet.  (Yeah, yeah, Crappy Glasses, we've done that joke.  I mean in terms of the metaphor of Secret Identities).  Hell, even when they managed to penetrate that in the medium they were FORCED to change it up.  Fucking Lois Lane mindwipe anyone ?  That was just frigging rape, no matter which way you look at it and yet the writers had little to no choice in the matter.

Superman is boring because he's so artificial.  He's, to quote the Scottish 'No Real'.  He cannot be hurt nor slowed down nor beaten nor even, as it turns out, killed for any length of time.  There's never any dramatic suspection that's in any way other than artificial and PALPABLY SO, compared to other heroes.  DC is, alas, awfully good at that.  I, for example, have never really got into Green Lantern for pretty much the same reason.  Don't even get me started on New Gods.

(They're Gods.  Who are new.  Apparently.)

All other heroes have weaknesses and pitfalls and problems that are real and exploitable.  There is sympathy there, there is understanding.

Superman is just an enormous fucking asshole who you cannot identify with in any way, shape or form, which is pretty much WHY I was blown away by Red Son.  Here was a Superman story I could finally get behind because Superman becomes what he was ALWAYS destined to be.  Absolute Power DOES corrupt absolutely and any 'beacon of light or freedom on the hill' metaphor you care to name has always proven to be false and fucked up.

Superman, with his Power, were he to exist would by his very nature be forced into controlling his environment.  He would, quite literally, have no choice in the matter.  Which is why making his artificial flaws a story point makes NO SENSE.

At this stage I'll refer you to a Lois and Clark episode - yeah, yeah, blow me - where a jury is convinced that Supes powers are causing a heatwave.  They ask him to stop using them.  He CAN'T.  That episode I loved.  Superman cannot act without being in the limitations of his own, er, lack of limitations.  He's as bound to what he is as much as anyone else and what he is a massive overpowerful douchenozzle.

I could literally go on for ages, but as someone else pointed out in this thread, it's pointless.

I prefer Batman.  I love Spiderman.  I Adore Tony Stark.

These people are human.  They are flawed.  They are, without doubt, complete and utter assholes.  Yet they are heroes not by removal of free will, but by choice.  Continued against the odds choice.

Heroes.

Superman is not a hero.

[Tannhauser]

You just don't like Supes because he tossed your skinny ass into the Phantom Zone.


Seriously though, great post. 

[Ironwood]

Which actually brings me to another portion of my argument.

"You are Ruler of all you survey."

"As I was yesterday and the day before."

That little exchange between Zod and his hawt English bitch summed up Superman for me.  Zod understood it;  with the level of power available on Earth, there was little or no point to existence.  None.  He may as well have been in the Phantom Zone.  Similarly, the bottle city of Kandor always struck me as an interesting metaphor.  Clark 'ruled' over that in the same way he rules over Earth.  He wants to 'help' but is ultimately powerless to affect.  The problem is people on Earth and, with the bottle, he literally cannot change the problem;  these people are in a fucking bottle Clark.

It's like reading a comic book about one man and his ant farm.  Eventually you're just asking what would happen if he fucked Lois and whether he could control his superspeed Jizz.

[NowhereMan]

That's the problem with Superman in the monthly serial format, there's no way you can change that his only real moral conflict is whether the should just go, "fuck it," and take control of everyone's lives for their benefit or whether he lets people continue to fuck themselves up. That stops being compelling after you've run it through a couple of times so you've got to pull out green rocks (or mix it up with red, yellow, etc.) or start throwing his companions off cliffs. Based on the fact that his powers are up to pretty much "do anything" territory those stories do become artificial simply because he's never in any real danger.

The moral conflict he has in Red Son though is something that can be done in stand alone story arcs quite well, the other aspect of Supes DC have got now in Superboy Prime is equally shitastic. Having Superman but evil works out really badly because after chewing through a few throw away characters he gets taken down by someone finding a red sun or Superman himself. I think Superman can be interesting though just for exploring a person who has all the power in the world and the temptations they go though. It would be far more interesting though if said person had any actual moral failings as opposed to making Capt. America look somewhat morally slack.

[HAMMER FRENZY]

Although I agree with some of Ironwoods ideas, I don't think they are really valid reasons to think Superman is a "douche-nozzle". (man-oh-man Clifford is a fucking idiot...) I also don't think that "for the man who has everything" was a bad story in the slightest. The idea of Superman being controlled by his own idea of ideal circumstances is interesting. It is also interesting to see that his ideal circumstances didn't have anything to do with being back on Earth, showing that, while he obviously feels an obligation to protecting Earth, he in fact wishes (perhaps sub-contiously) that he was not burdened with that kind of responsibility. While we see this, it is kinda tough to come to grips with the idea that, yeah, Superman would rather be back on krypton, he rather had pops around and have less responsibility, fuck Earth. Yet upon realizing that this is all BS and that he in fact has vowed to protect Earth, he breaks out of the illusion and takes care of business. It shows his dedication to what he thinks is right in an act of selflessness. I completely agree with the idea that Superman is in fact all powerful, he can't be stopped. He knows this. He knows that humans are weak and petty but he also realizes that he really has no place to make them do anything, and that by just involving himself in a any situation that altered what would have happened naturally makes him responsible to Earth, he takes that and does the right thing. He's super because he doesn't let his power corrupt him, he's super because with great fucking power comes great responsibility. I think he is cool cause he can keep that shit in check.

I do think that better writing would make the character more interesting, and really comparing him to other characters is apples to oranges. I like Batman and Ironman and Punisher and all these "real" heroes for the fact that it is more believable but at the same time it is designed to make me relate to these characters more. But I can't relate in the slightest to the billionaire-playboy-greatest detective int he world, or the billionaire-playboy-smartest man in the world, etc. in any way other than, I am a person and I am somewhat passionate about things too. Maybe some people relate to the alcholism, or mental/emotional damage of their childhood or overbearing need for revenge, whatever. But I don't feel the need to see myself in every character I read about, or to have some sort of idea that I can relate to this or that. I can't relate to Superman in anyway but I like that he has super powers and that his problems sometimes just can't be solved by them, and that ultimately he is faced with the same types of choices as I am, only at a much larger scale.

I personally love Batman btw. He is my favorite comicbook character, but more so because of how I think of him rather than all his stories. I like a lot of what has been written but there is definitely a lot of trash there too. But I also know that Batman has a secret formula, and people are just drawn to that shit. Making good stuff out of great ingredients is all good, but making great stuff with little to work with is also very commendable.

If you just take the idea of superman for what it is minus all the bs writing that has been done. It is a good concept and there are all kinds of cool things that one could conjure up. the idea of being nearly godlike minus the ability to know everything, is just cool to me. It is a real test of heroism and compassion.    

[Khaldun]

An interesting way to write Superman would be if he was even more conscious about saying, "I'm only going to help the people I know and the place I live in, because it's the only way I can manage my moral dilemma. I know it's arbitrary, but that's the way it is, kids." And then go from there: really explore the place he lives in, the people he knows, make the use of his powers at the fine-grained level of individual lives the main conflict that's being explored. This is what was interesting about the Byrne reboot of Luthor: it matched Superman up against a kind of power that his own powers aren't well suited to dealing with. So make Superman stories more about how he processes the knowledge that he could save people elsewhere but won't. The only alternative story heads relentlessly in the direction of Moore's Miracleman (if you want to play it negatively) or Morrison's All-Star Superman (if you want to play it positively): it has to be about apotheosis and its burdens.

Batman, after all, has more or less decided the same thing about limiting his scope of action. He *could* try to address crime more systematically: he has the money and knowledge to do something along those lines. (There's a feeble gesture towards this with the Wayne Foundation,etc.). But he knows that's an even more unwinnable fight than stopping thugs on the street from killing somebody. It would lead him forever away from any hope of a momentary success, and it would lead him well beyond Gotham City. (This is one reason I don't like the way Ra's al-Ghul has been used, because suddenly Batman is James Bond, fighting a global organization all over the place. I'd rather that al-Ghul be a unique torment for Batman precisely because he feels he can't afford to go chasing him all over the place, and can only focus on him when his organization is active in Gotham.) So Batman chooses to deal only with individual crime as he encounters it. That's what he experienced as a child, and it's what he thinks he can understand and react to. It's not that he *couldn't* act on another scale--it's that he's decided not to.

Actually I can only think of a few superheroic characters whose limits are firmly built into either their powers or their personalities, or both. Robinson's Starman is a pretty good example of the combination of the two: he's got a weapon, it's sort of powerful but not really that much, and he's not especially inclined to do much as a hero beyond react to obvious threats or get drawn accidentally into weird situations. But I'd agree that these tend to be the most interesting characters, and often the ones most creator-driven. A character like the Flash or Green Lantern is only interesting for as long as a skilled writer distracts you or makes you forget that the character should have few practical limits to his power. There was a JLA story a while back where Flash saved the entire population of a North Korean city from an atomic blast by moving them one person at a time while moving at superluminal speeds. The moment that story appears, it should be all over for the character, really: it means that he has the potential to be omnipotent, to be all places at once, stopping every bad thing from happening anywhere. Right this very second, he'd be able to take all the weapons away from every single insurgent or terrorist everywhere in the world; bring a solid meal to every hungry person; stop any and all car accidents or other engineering failures. No one anywhere would ever die again from a natural disaster. Every armed conflict would stop the moment it started: Flash could keep Hamas from firing any rockets anywhere at Israel and keep any Israeli attacks on Gaza from hurting anyone. So the only way to keep the character even slightly useful is that you forget you told that story the second that you told it; it was a cool scene, just an ephemeral gosh-wow moment.