Simplify Superman
Mark Moore
Personally, I think that Superman is too powerful. To match him, the
writers have had to create bigger, badder enemies for him to take on.
To me, it's rather ridiculous. Superman is no longer simply a "strange
visitor from another world with powers and abilities far beyond those
of mortal men". He's like a god that walks the Earth.
What I'd do is have some alien knock Supes' powers down a few notches.
He can have flight capability (though he'd tire after a few minutes
and would have to rest before attempting it again), heat vision, some
super-speed, heat vision (not too hot, though), and perhaps x-ray
vision. He'd be faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a
locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but not
anywhere near as powerful as he is today.
Superman defeats the alien and send it back home, but something
happens, and faster-than-light travel is made impossible, thus making
the Earth more isolated and reducing the number of aliens that arrive
on the planet.
Time-travel would also be impossible - at least into the future or
from the future, because the future wouldn't exist.
Travel between the past and present would be discouraged to avoid time
paradoxes.
The DC Universe titles would be based in the present time. No 30th
century stuff.
Superman would go back to basics - foiling bank robberies, catching
purse-snatchers, etc.
Thoughts?
Mark
Citizen-Y
"Mark Moore" <rory_ll...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8d108ea4.02081...@posting.google.com...
Byrne did that then Jurgens repowered him. Accomplished nada.
Les Bonser
On 8/19/02 5:54 PM, in article
8d108ea4.02081...@posting.google.com, "Mark Moore"
<rory_ll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was wondering what everyone thinks of this.
>
> Personally, I think that Superman is too powerful. To match him, the
> writers have had to create bigger, badder enemies for him to take on.
> To me, it's rather ridiculous. Superman is no longer simply a "strange
> visitor from another world with powers and abilities far beyond those
> of mortal men". He's like a god that walks the Earth.
Deja vu, all over again. This is the same excuse they used for "depowering"
him after Crisis.
>
> What I'd do is have some alien knock Supes' powers down a few notches.
> He can have flight capability (though he'd tire after a few minutes
> and would have to rest before attempting it again), heat vision, some
> super-speed, heat vision (not too hot, though), and perhaps x-ray
> vision. He'd be faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a
> locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but not
> anywhere near as powerful as he is today.
>
> Superman defeats the alien and send it back home, but something
> happens, and faster-than-light travel is made impossible, thus making
> the Earth more isolated and reducing the number of aliens that arrive
> on the planet.
>
> Time-travel would also be impossible - at least into the future or
> from the future, because the future wouldn't exist.
>
> Travel between the past and present would be discouraged to avoid time
> paradoxes.
>
> The DC Universe titles would be based in the present time. No 30th
> century stuff.
>
> Superman would go back to basics - foiling bank robberies, catching
> purse-snatchers, etc.
That's Batman's job... Superman, depowered or not, such always be the DC
universe's premier superhero, ready to defend and protect the entire planet,
not just capturing petty crooks.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Mark
Jeg7777
Boy, are *you* going against the tide. ;-)
--
Joe
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of
those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too
little." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
jay
wrote:
> I was wondering what everyone thinks of this.
>
> Personally, I think that Superman is too powerful.
> To match him, the writers have had to create
> bigger, badder enemies for him to take on. To me,
> it's rather ridiculous. Superman is no longer simply
> a "strange visitor from another world with powers
> and abilities far beyond those of mortal men". He's
> like a god that walks the Earth.
Duck and cover, dude. You're 100% correct on
the point, but by making it, you're going to get
clobbered by about 10,000 screaming reactionary
"fanboys" types, who regard changing the breadth
of Clark's eyebrows by three or four hairs to be the
equivalent of killing the character entirely.
> Superman would go back to basics - foiling
> bank robberies, catching purse-snatchers,
> etc.
>
> Thoughts?
There are a lot of things that could be done
to try to make Superman good again; try even
throwing out suggestions in this direction,
though, and you'll be stoned to death for
heresy. As for Superman fighting crime, this is
what he did in the Golden Age, when the
books were actually good. Far from celebrating
this period, the aforementioned stone-throwers
look at it as an embarassment.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Byrne did that then Jurgens repowered him. Accomplished nada.
Byrne's revisions were great. What was the rationale for upping
his power levels?
--
Wiggum: This bullet matches the one we pulled out of Mr. Burns! Homer
Simpson, you're under arrest for attempted murder.
Homer: [getting cuffed] D'oh!
Wiggum: Yeah, that's what they all say. They all say "D'oh".
jay
<rocke...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I was wondering what everyone thinks of
>> this.
>>
>> Personally, I think that Superman is too powerful.
>> To match him, the writers have had to create
>> bigger, badder enemies for him to take on. To me,
>> it's rather ridiculous. Superman is no longer simply
>> a "strange visitor from another world with powers
>> and abilities far beyond those of mortal men". He's
>> like a god that walks the Earth.
>
> Deja vu, all over again. This is the same excuse
> they used for "depowering" him after Crisis.
They were correct to do that then--the original
poster is correct now. The only real problem
with the post-Crisis Superman is that he wasn't
depowered anywhere near enough.
Citizen-Y
"Andrew Ryan Chang" <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message news:ajsibv$87b$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
They killed him and brought him back to life powered up.
troy
> The DC Universe titles would be based in the present time. No 30th
> century stuff.
Don't call us. We'll call you. Next!
****grumble grumble mutter mutter*** no 30th century stuff....why i
oughta...
Mark Moore
> Duck and cover, dude. You're 100% correct on
> the point, but by making it, you're going to get
> clobbered by about 10,000 screaming reactionary
> "fanboys" types, who regard changing the breadth
> of Clark's eyebrows by three or four hairs to be the
> equivalent of killing the character entirely.
That's okay. I've dealt with the worst fanboys of all - the guys that
run The Captain N Network:
The main guy, Webster Sterling Swenson, hacked into a bunch of my
accounts last August and took down my Captain N site, because he was
upset that I had "perverted" and "defiled" Captain N by changing the
characters so much in the fan fiction that I write.
Basically, Webster has proclaimed himself the new "leader of the
Captain N online community" (such as it is) and believes that any
"tasteless" (meaning anything rated NC-17 or perhaps even R) stories
are wrong.
> There are a lot of things that could be done
> to try to make Superman good again; try even
> throwing out suggestions in this direction,
> though, and you'll be stoned to death for
> heresy. As for Superman fighting crime, this is
> what he did in the Golden Age, when the
> books were actually good. Far from celebrating
> this period, the aforementioned stone-throwers
> look at it as an embarassment.
I haven't read many Golden Age stories, except for the millennium
Edition reprints, and I found those more enjoyable than the convuluted
mess we have now.
Mark
Jay and Diane Rudin
> Personally, I think that Superman is too powerful. To match him, the
> writers have had to create bigger, badder enemies for him to take on.
> To me, it's rather ridiculous. Superman is no longer simply a "strange
> visitor from another world with powers and abilities far beyond those
> of mortal men". He's like a god that walks the Earth.
This is a common complaint. Unfortunately, it has no sales data to back it
up. The most over-powered version of Superman was also the best selling
Superman era.
By the way, there is no conflict between "far beyond ... mortal men" and "a
god that walks the earth".
> What I'd do is have some alien knock Supes' powers down a few notches.
> He can have flight capability (though he'd tire after a few minutes
> and would have to rest before attempting it again), heat vision, some
> super-speed, heat vision (not too hot, though), and perhaps x-ray
> vision. He'd be faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a
> locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but not
> anywhere near as powerful as he is today.
>
> Superman defeats the alien and send it back home, but something
> happens, and faster-than-light travel is made impossible, thus making
> the Earth more isolated and reducing the number of aliens that arrive
> on the planet.
Something happens that affects the entire universe all at once, and this is
a tool for reducing the level of powers?
> Time-travel would also be impossible - at least into the future or
> from the future, because the future wouldn't exist.
Again, this isn't backed up by sales. The Legion is quite often one of the
highest selling DC books. Also, there have been many time-travel stories
into the future already. Are you retconnoing them out of existence, or is
time travel to the future just impossible "from now on". Careful --
remember that the thirtieth century was always in "from now on".
> Travel between the past and present would be discouraged to avoid time
> paradoxes.
A time paradox is just a retcon that has an excuse. If you're willing to
retcon away time travel, then why are you worried about time paradoxes?
In the sixties, they avoided time paradoxes by making it impossible to
change the past, and by STICKING TO IT.
> The DC Universe titles would be based in the present time. No 30th
> century stuff.
>
> Superman would go back to basics - foiling bank robberies, catching
> purse-snatchers, etc.
>
> Thoughts?
This might make an interesting comic book universe. But it wouldn't be
compatible with the DCU as currently presented. So don't bother bringing in
an alien to depower Superman - just start over from scratch. In which case,
why call him Superman? Just start a new universe with the kind of
characters, and power levels, and time-travel limits that you want.
In any event, don't introduce an alien as a reason why we don't see aliens
any more, or invent a new, universe-affecting power when the goal is to
reduce power levels.
Jay Rudin
Sean Daugherty
> I was wondering what everyone thinks of this.
>
> Personally, I think that Superman is too powerful. To match him, the
> writers have had to create bigger, badder enemies for him to take on.
> To me, it's rather ridiculous. Superman is no longer simply a "strange
> visitor from another world with powers and abilities far beyond those
> of mortal men". He's like a god that walks the Earth.
Oh, pshaw. This attitude has been thrown around for years, and it all
seems to go back to a general misconception about the comic book
medium: not all stories need to be one-on-one (or even one-on-many)
beat-em-ups. Most of Superman's villains have not been physical
combatants.
- Luthor is a planner, a schemer, and someone who's intelligence and
connections make him a considerable thorn in the side of someone
like Supes, who can't just go and rough him up a bit.
- Brainiac's strength, similarly, is in his intelligence
(obviously...)
- Mxyptlk's role is to basically mess with Superman's head, and to
make life difficult for him. Again, not a usual physical
combatant.
Even the overtly physical of Superman's villains aren't generally the
sorts he would engage in no-holds-barred fights with. Metallo poses a
significant threat to him, courtesy of his green K power core, and
Bizarro's often confused mental state makes the main challenge with
him to calm him down and prevent collateral damage.
This is actually true for a good majority of superheroes, as well.
Batman seldom gets in direct fights/confrontations with people like
the Joker or Penguin, for instance. And, in any case, Superman's not
even the strongest headliner DC's got: the versatility and abilities
of the Green Lantern ring (particularly given that it no longer has
the yellow weakness or charge limit) make GL a lot stronger, and
probably more versatile, than Superman.
Superman's not really a god, at least, not post-Crisis. He's a normal
guy with unusual powers. Those powers make it very easy for him to
face off against traditional physical threats, but do him little to no
good should he have any different challenges to face. Whether or not
the current creative team is effective in crafting challenges of this
sort aside, all that depowering the character further would do is to
invite weaker, more stereotyped plots, at the same time as it removes
the very things that the public identifies with the character. The
Marvel-inspired comics-as-slugfest concept was tired from the instant
it hit the scene.
> Superman defeats the alien and send it back home, but something
> happens, and faster-than-light travel is made impossible, thus making
> the Earth more isolated and reducing the number of aliens that arrive
> on the planet.
Erm... the question of whether or not this could be realistically
written aside, it is disastrous to those characters in the DCU who do
frequently have some presence in space, such as Green Lantern, Hawkman
(silver age, at least), L.E.G.I.O.N. (should anyone ever bring them
back again....), and the Legion of Super-Heroes.
> Time-travel would also be impossible - at least into the future or
> from the future, because the future wouldn't exist.
Except that time travel has long been an essential part of the DCU, as
well, and this doesn't really jive with physics. We've got Booster
Gold, the John Fox Flash, the DC1,000,000 characters, Rip Hunter, the
Legion of Super-Heroes, etc. Some of these characters (the Legion)
even have ongoing books as we speak, and others are relatively
frequently occuring background presences (Booster shows up now and
again, after all).
Plus, the logic of this argument, which I've heard lots of time,
always bothers me. It's a very simplistic one, assuming that there is
only the *now*, and that the past and future are somehow less
relevant. If nothing else, its doesn't make sense: if someone travels
back in time to 1940 to meet with the Justice Society, then, from the
perspective of the Justice Society's "present," the future *does*
exist, as the visitor just arrived from there.
> Travel between the past and present would be discouraged to avoid time
> paradoxes.
This is fair. But, of course, Superman himself has engaged in
relatively little time travel since before CRISIS, generally only on
rare occassions ("Time and Time Again") and crossover events ("Zero
Hour").
> The DC Universe titles would be based in the present time. No 30th
> century stuff.
Wouldn't happen. The Legion has probably DC's most devoted fanbase,
and the new book has been doing relatively well on the charts. The
series is one of DC's most respected, with numerous comic book
professionals citing it as one of their favorites, and DC's current
publisher and president, Paul Levitz, is not only one of the team's
most ardent supporters, but wrote the book for close to a decade
during the 1980s.
In any case, eliminating the future history of the DCU in order to
perform an questionable retooling of a character who seldom travels to
the future seems pointless. Of the DCU's mainstream superheroes, only
a very small handful have shown any ability to travel backwards and
forwards through time on a whim (the Flashes).
> Superman would go back to basics - foiling bank robberies, catching
> purse-snatchers, etc.
While I wouldn't mind seeing more of this sort of activity in the
background now and then, how would *you* craft a 32 page story about
even a moderately depowered Superman foiling a bank robbery when even
a non-superpowered hero like Batman could do so in about two pages.
Truth be told, Superman's primary activity was really *never* doing
either of those things, beyond the first two or three issues of
ACTION: he is a science fiction character, and he invites stories of
greater scope.
Bri'tr Wehil
"troy" <krypton...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ajtcgb$smj$1...@news.laserlink.net...
That is why so much of the Animated Style comic are better than the
mainstream. They are done tastefully by people that truly remember and care
about storytelling.
TAB
Pluto \(M\) ³
>
> Personally, I think that Superman is too powerful. To match him, the
> writers have had to create bigger, badder enemies for him to take on.
> To me, it's rather ridiculous. Superman is no longer simply a "strange
> visitor from another world with powers and abilities far beyond those
> of mortal men". He's like a god that walks the Earth.
Supes USED to be too powerful. He has weaknesses now. He /can/ get tired and he
CAN be beaten into a pulp. Crisis fixed this to a degree, and Doomsday fixed
this a LOT. Yay doomsday! Remember, it used to be that the only things that
could hurt him were Kryptonite and Magic.
> What I'd do is have some alien knock Supes' powers down a few notches.
> He can have flight capability (though he'd tire after a few minutes
> and would have to rest before attempting it again), heat vision, some
> super-speed, heat vision (not too hot, though), and perhaps x-ray
> vision. He'd be faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a
> locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, but not
> anywhere near as powerful as he is today.
>
> Superman defeats the alien and send it back home, but something
> happens, and faster-than-light travel is made impossible, thus making
> the Earth more isolated and reducing the number of aliens that arrive
> on the planet.
Way to castrate Wally and Kyle. Not to mention the Earth once they get FTL
capability.
> Time-travel would also be impossible - at least into the future or
> from the future, because the future wouldn't exist.
Way to castrate continuity :)
> Travel between the past and present would be discouraged to avoid time
> paradoxes.
They try to avoid THAT anyway.
> The DC Universe titles would be based in the present time. No 30th
> century stuff.
Bah :D
> Superman would go back to basics - foiling bank robberies, catching
> purse-snatchers, etc.
Soooo... he'd be boring again?
LArry Stanley
Mark Moore wrote:
Yeah..... good intent, bad idea.
LArry
the Ultimate Fanboy
--
LArry Stanley
Editor PCU
the Ultimate Fanboy
Science Fiction, Horror, Comics, Videos and Movies. Always accepting
amateur articles, art and fiction.
http://www.penguincomics.net
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/P_C_U/
ultimate fanboy/PCU/Penguin Comics Unlimited TM 2002 by Larry Stanley
LArry Stanley
Mark Moore wrote:
> I was wondering what everyone thinks of this.
>
> Personally, I think that Superman is too powerful.
Really? What about Martian Manhunter, Green Lantern, Spectre, Lobo,
Flash, Wonder Woman, Power Girl, Supergirl, Captain Marvel or any of the
other 'super powered' characters in the DC universe?
How far should their powers be cut?
You know, we already have characters with the type powers you wish for
Superman.
They are Batman, Green Arrow, Blue Beetle, Plastic Man (well, ok, not
Plastic Man), you get the idea....... there are plenty of hero's with the
levels or near the levels you describe. Read them.
Leave Superman alone, or return him to pre-crisis levels, and get some
decent writers and artists.
Any further weakining of Superman, and his new nickname will have to be
"The Man of Tin".
Les Bonser
1FF0E2D4603ABACD.06E3B591...@lp.airnews.net, "jay"
<jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The single best thing that can be done with Superman (or any character) is
to hire decent writers who will write GOOD stories. A good story can be
written regardless of the power level of character, how much or how little
backstory there is, and with or without regard to continuity.
Les Bonser
D591308191DA2B59.8A5484C9...@lp.airnews.net, "jay"
<jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Not saying it wouldn't be a good idea. Only that it's been done before and
to do it again would be considered a gimmick. Just as it was considered
before...
Les Bonser
2_p89.82861$m91.4...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com, "Citizen-Y"
<Parle...@comcast.net> wrote:
Well, sort of...
Superman's most recent power up parallels his original power up.
After they brought him back to life, he was about as powerful as before
fighting Doomsday. But then he started getting more and more powerful. They
wrote this off as some sort of metabolic "quirk." He was eventually "cured"
of this, but did seem to be a little more powerful than before.
Sometime later, Mongol came to Earth asking for Superman's help. To
accomplish this, Mongol taught him various martial arts and "mind tricks"
that brought him up in power. For example, the ability to fly longer in
space without breathing.
Superman's power levels are still somewhat dependent upon who's writing him.
He seems to be least powerful in his own books, but stronger in the JLA (my
opinion...)
jay
<rocke...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> I was wondering what everyone thinks of
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think that Superman is too powerful.
>>>> To match him, the writers have had to create
>>>> bigger, badder enemies for him to take on. To me,
>>>> it's rather ridiculous. Superman is no longer simply
>>>> a "strange visitor from another world with powers
>>>> and abilities far beyond those of mortal men". He's
>>>> like a god that walks the Earth.
>>>
>>> Deja vu, all over again. This is the same excuse
>>> they used for "depowering" him after Crisis.
>>
>> They were correct to do that then--the original
>> poster is correct now. The only real problem
>> with the post-Crisis Superman is that he wasn't
>> depowered anywhere near enough.
>
> Not saying it wouldn't be a good idea. Only that
> it's been done before and to do it again would be
> considered a gimmick. Just as it was considered
> before...
Powering him up in the first place was a gimmick.
jay
<rocke...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> There are a lot of things that could be done
>> to try to make Superman good again; try even
>> throwing out suggestions in this direction,
>> though, and you'll be stoned to death for
>> heresy. As for Superman fighting crime, this is
>> what he did in the Golden Age, when the
>> books were actually good. Far from celebrating
>> this period, the aforementioned stone-throwers
>> look at it as an embarassment.
>
> The single best thing that can be done with
> Superman (or any character) is to hire decent
> writers who will write GOOD stories. A good
> story can be written regardless of the power
> level of character, how much or how little
> backstory there is, and with or without regard
> to continuity.
The godlike power levels automatically exclude
most good writers. This has always been the
case--Superman is notorious as one of the
hardest of the major characters to write.
Silver Hero
The all-powerful Superman has lasted half a century BECAUSE he is
all-powerful. The only reason for de-powering Superman is so that you can
write stories about a hero that USED to be all-powerful. And then when that
gets old, you return him to his former power levels.
Why don't we give Batman super powers? He could have sonar, and fly
around... no wait, then he wouldn't be Batman anymore.. he'd be somebody
else. Get it?
A weakened Superman makes for interesting stories... for a while. Then he
returns to greatness. He always has, he always will.
"Mark Moore" <rory_ll...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d108ea4.02081...@posting.google.com...
Joe Bergeron
<ultimat...@penguincomics.net> wrote:
> Any further weakining of Superman, and his new nickname will have to be
> "The Man of Tin".
I think you're overrating the strength of steel. Make a life-size solid
steel statue, start blasting it with artillery, and see how long it
lasts.
Superman seems more like the Man of Inertron.
--
Joe Bergeron
Rand-L
slugfest every issue. But, when he needs to call upon his power, I want to
see it. The last good Supes story that hit the stands recently was when
Superman took on the Elite. The story had a few glitches, but I rate it an
8 out of 10. In the story's climax, you see what Superman can do when he
employes his power. Superman is the premier superhero and his strength and
toughness should create a sense of awe in the reader and with the other
fictional characters within the DC Universe.
One way to strengthen the Superman stories is to find a way to evoke
excitement and/or an emotional response from the reader that is intriguing.
I would also like to see stories in which Superman also feels emotion, not
in a petty way that most of the current stories convey, but in some way that
really can portray sadness, fear, etc. on Superman's part. When Superman
took on the Elite there were scenes that showed emotional concern by various
characters; Superman/Clark, Lois, Jonathan Kent.
A complaint I have about some of the Superman writers is that I feel that
they're preaching to reader. The storytelling seems superficial and the
writers do not seem to know how to make the reader feel immersed in the
story. This problem is more than just the fault of the writer. The editors
apparently cannot discern what is needed to create a really good story and
to make the writers produce quality work.
Creating a separate teams of writers, artists, and editors might be a good
idea for the production of more mature and well crafted stories and visuals.
And by mature, I'm not talking about sex, filth or lewdness. The ideals of
Superman must be upheld in all of the Superman stories that are written, but
I do feel that the horror of war, drugs, or other tragedies can be more
realistically portrayed. Additionally, when no other avenue is possible,
show Superman breaking a villains arm or drilling a hole through an
adversary with his heat vision. On occasion an Elseworlds tale or even a
monthly Superman title may cut loose, but it's far to seldom.
Superman stories do not have to be all action and violence. What about a
Superman story where Superman is delivering grain or other food materials to
starving people, but unwittingly delivers poison food that results in
deaths? How would that affect Superman and the world's impression of him?
Would he be blamed? Who would be the mastermind behind that? Don't always
make the mastermind villain to be Lex Luthor. Why not make the villains
aliens that poison humans and lay the blame on Supes so that he'll be forced
off the planet. The poison also can treat the human bodies in a way that
makes the dead a delicacy to the aliens. In effect, they're preparing us to
be food and we have no defense without Superman since he's been forced off
the Earth. Make the story into a mini-series because one of two issues are
not enough to develop a strong story line.
Other ideas:
Superman can remain powerful, but how would he use his invulnerability if
his pain threshold were reduced or "normal"? Would he hesitate to jump in
front of a bullet or run into a fire knowing that it would hurt like hell?
If Superman were in outer space and needed some real power, how about having
him fly close to or into a "white" or "blue" star to give him a real charge.
What would be the consequences of such an action?
What if something were stalking Superman that really frightened him? How
would he deal with his own fear? Why not show Superman and Batman
discussing this and keeping this to themselves knowing that the world
expects a Superman that shows no fear or human weakness? How would the
world react if the word got out? Would someone take advantage of this?
These may not be the best examples of possible stories, but I believe there
are many stories that can be written intelligently with a very powerful
Superman. Someone just needs to put forth the effort.
Superman is my favorite character. I want to keep him SUPER and popular.
Randy
--
.
. . . Please reply to: ra...@r16.com
. . . If I do not respond within a reasonable length of time,
. . . an e-mail relay problem may have occurred.
. . . My alternate e-mail addresses are: rand...@yahoo.com and
rpro...@ix.netcom.com
. . . For important issues, please call me on the telephone.
. . . Thank you.
"Silver Hero" <silve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T6D89.1999$1b.1...@news1.east.cox.net...
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
: Personally, I think that Superman is too powerful.
: What I'd do is have some alien knock Supes' powers down a few notches.
It's been tried before.
This Superman was to have been less powerful than the former one.
And there was the 'sand Superman' saga in which the former Superman lost a
chunk of his powers.
But it never lasts; the next story has to be bigger and more exciting than
the last. So whatever has to be done to improve Superman, it has to be
something new. This keeps getting tried, and keeps failing.
John Savard
Andrew Ryan Chang
>It's been tried before.
>
>This Superman was to have been less powerful than the former one.
>
>And there was the 'sand Superman' saga in which the former Superman lost a
>chunk of his powers.
>
>But it never lasts; the next story has to be bigger and more exciting than
>the last. So whatever has to be done to improve Superman, it has to be
>something new. This keeps getting tried, and keeps failing.
I dunno about "never lasts". The Byrne revamp had him relatively
depowered for years and years; it was almost nine years from reboot to
powerup. IMO, it could have gone on a lot longer.
--
Try 8 Magic Soaps: Almond, Aloe Vera, Baby-Supermild, Eucalyptus,
Lavendar, Lemon, Peppermint & Rose. Also Balanced Mineral Bouillion &
Seasonings etc...
-Dr Bronner
Frank
"jay" <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:50701484874E326F.299185F8...@lp.airnews.net...
John Byrne and Jerry Ordway seemed to do ok.
jay
>> This Superman was to have been less
>> powerful than the former one.
>>
>> And there was the 'sand Superman' saga
>> in which the former Superman lost a chunk
>> of his powers.
>>
>> But it never lasts; the next story has to be
>> bigger and more exciting than the last. So
>> whatever has to be done to improve
>> Superman, it has to be something new. This
>> keeps getting tried, and keeps failing.
>
> I dunno about "never lasts". The Byrne
> revamp had him relatively depowered for years
> and years; it was almost nine years from reboot
> to powerup. IMO, it could have gone on a lot
> longer.
To be fair, though, even Byrne's Superman
was far too powerful.
jay
> This Superman was to have been less
> powerful than the former one.
>
> And there was the 'sand Superman' saga in
> which the former Superman lost a chunk of
> his powers.
>
> But it never lasts; the next story has to be
> bigger and more exciting than the last.
That's a phony argument, though--the more
powerful Superman is, the less exciting are
his adventures. The very act of "powering
up" Superman is a gimmick in place of a
real story--it's blatant god-machine material.
> So
> whatever has to be done to improve
> Superman, it has to be something new.
> This keeps getting tried, and keeps failing.
DC should depower the character and put
their foot down whenever someone wants
to reverse it.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>On 21 Aug 2002 19:46:24 GMT, arc...@sfu.ca (Andrew Ryan Chang) wrote:
>>> But it never lasts; the next story has to be
>> I dunno about "never lasts". The Byrne
>> revamp had him relatively depowered for years
>To be fair, though, even Byrne's Superman
>was far too powerful.
Well, he's still got to be one of the top DC heroes, and since the
competition is GL, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman ... with villains
including Darkseid, Lobo, and Mongul, that puts a lower bound on how
unsuper he can be and still be Superman.
The Operative
> purse-snatchers, etc.
>
> Thoughts?
I'd be bored out of my socks. I think anybody dressing up in spandex
and running around beating up petty criminals is an embarrasingly
stupid way of operating. Those crimes mentioned here, in particular,
are ones of people who lack basic things -- common sense, money, and
what have you. Locking them up doesn't solve the problem, and if the
Man of Tomorrow was all about that, I'd be even _more_ anti-Superman
than I am now.
OTOH, as some posters have noted, writing a godlike creature (and most
metahumans are, face it) who can be _resurrected_ (more argument for
godlike, tons of people come back from the dead) requires a certain
finesse. I read most Superman books in the store (very rarely buying
one, I've paid for maybe two issues in the last two years), and I'm
always amazed that the fights aren't over a lot faster. Super speed.
The ability to punch through buildings. Flight. Almost every fight
against traditional combatants (i.e. non magical) should be 1) grab
moron 2) fly into upper atmosphere, while holding breath, 3) wait for
moron to pass out, 4) chuckle a little, 5) fly moron to star labs or
somewhere for safe keeping. Then again, how many versions of Batman
have told us Clark Kent is not all that smart?
Two of my favorite Superman stories are Batman story, from the
animated series. Bruce had his brain taken over by Braniac and Supes
filled in for Batman. Except for an irritating habit of smiling, he
was almost better than the real thing (save Robin doing the thinking
for him). The ability to strike fear in the hearts of criminals goes
way up when you can be _everywhere_, thanks to superspeed. In the JLA
one shot where Kobra makes the leage switch bodies, Oracle asks Batman
how it is too have superman's powers. He claims it's too easy, makes
him wanna not rely on the training and power through everything. I
found it refreshing.
My other favorite Superman story is a Stormwatch story, the one
involving The High. "People forget, farmers are political people
too."
That said, I'm actually a Silver Age fan of the old
juggling-planets-Superman, well known in the LSH of that period (I
just grabbed the Great Darkness Saga, and when the Daxamites took off,
I felt a little surge in my heart). Power is not the problem.
Writing (and sometimes editing) is the problem. Muhammad X? Dracula?
The Royal Flush Gang? Please.
When Action Comics #775 (vs. the Authority knockoff team The Elite)
came out, I said it. When Superman: Peace on Earth came out, I said
it. The Day of the Superman is over. He's an anachronism, an
antiquity. His character is next to impossible to believe today.
It's time to hang it up, or accept that the character created however
many decades ago is illogical today (which is funny, because the
darker crimebusting Batman is as relevant today as he ever was). The
bright primary colors of his existence have faded, and its time to
look at him with new eyes (which is why I was so disappointed when
Morrison said DC wouldn't let them at him, especially after the JLA
run, but oh well).
-Hannibal Tabu
The Operative Network
http://www.operative.net/
Submissions Editor for Funky Comics
http://www.funkycomics.com
Les Bonser
50701484874E326F.299185F8...@lp.airnews.net, "jay"
<jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Shouldn't that be the other way around? Any "good" writer should be able to
handle this. It's the mediocre writers that have a problem with it.
If he's the hardest character to write, then they need the best writers on
his books...
j...@mindspring.com
a shadow of his former self story. Although, there were some good
stories...de-powering Superman was a big mistake. Superman should have
maintained his power-up story line that occurred after his resurrection from
the dead...they were by far the best.
I for one hate seeing; 1) Superman's Cape torn or burnt off, 2) beard
growing, 3) married, 4)5)him Superman, bleeding. Now, to me, that is not the
real Superman I grew up knowing, makes him appear too weak. And, anyone in
this newsgroup that really likes seeing a weak Superman, you can tune into
the current JLA Cartoon series..Superman is really pathetic there..its
embarrassing. Superman should: 1) be able to function in space forever if
he choose to. 2) have a Super brain to match his Super physical power 3) an
indestructible costume 4) a smaller S emblem.
DC please reboot Superman and set things straight by taking care of the
above. and for God Sakes get some decent artist..I'm sure the Legendary Curt
Swan is turning over in his grave looking at some of this art work
especially in this current years books...sorry but some of that stuff is
awful. I may not have agreed with Byrne direction for Superman but at least
the art work was good as was Dan Jurgens.
God like powers are great and Superman should have them. Let the true Man of
Steel Return as the Galactic Guardian of the universe. Superman is the
Flagship of DC treat him as such.
"jay" <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9C9F9DB7D308B6EE.734D9F01...@lp.airnews.net...
Travis Casey
> "jay" <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The godlike power levels automatically exclude
>> most good writers. This has always been the
>> case--Superman is notorious as one of the
>> hardest of the major characters to write.
>
> Shouldn't that be the other way around? Any "good" writer should be able
> to handle this. It's the mediocre writers that have a problem with it.
I think that what the poster meant is that you have to be better than good
to write for Superman at his "godlike" power level and make interesting
stories -- you have to be very, very good.
--
ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efi...@earthlink.net>
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
jroe...@mindspring.com
a narrow minded definition is simply taking the easy way out.
Power-UP Reboot..Superman and lets have some planet pushing please!
"The Operative" <hte...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9218d6ef.02082...@posting.google.com...
Don_Diego
other stuff to the lesser super-heroes !
Don
jay
> And Byrne reboot accomplished nothing but
> tell a much less powerful Superman a shadow
> of his former self story.
Byrne gave us one of the most consistently
good runs the character has ever had. He
doesn't have anything ot apologize for.
> I for one hate seeing; 1) Superman's Cape
> torn or burnt off, 2) beard growing, 3) married,
> 4)5)him Superman, bleeding. Now, to me, that
> is not the real Superman I grew up knowing,
> makes him appear too weak.
Yes, far better that he remain 30 years old,
indestructible, clean shaven, well-dressed,
sweet smelling, lonely, oafish, boring, and
stuck in "adventures" that aren't worth a
shit. Forever and ever.
> Superman should: 1) be able to function in
> space forever if he choose to.
...and this power comes from where?
> 2) have a Super brain to match his Super
> physical power
Yes, he doesn't need to learn things like
mere mortals--he has a super-brain.
> 3) an indestructible costume
How and why?
> DC please reboot Superman and set
> things straight by taking care of the
> above.
Even Superman couldn't hold his breath
waiting that long.
jay
There's no reason to do that--if Superman is
god-like, he can do it all.
quimico
Ha!
However, god-like isn't being like God. You see, god-like means
being like the greek gods were pictured... powerful beyond
mortal possibilities, but still not omnipotent.
And that is how Superman has been portrayed...
even at his most powerful.
Superman is (and should be) god-like in power, but human
in attitude. Even more human then most human beings is...
This apparent contrast actually keeps the character from being dull.
He is always in danger of sliding into becoming Doctor Manhattan...
But he always resists. We might say that most important challenges Superman
faces are internal. Superman is a Sui-generis character, and we might say
that once a good writer has understood the character's defining premises,
then nothing will stop him fro writing excellent stories. It is just that most
writers of today see superhero characters as stereotyped, and want to
write Superman as a claw-less Wolverine.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>I for one hate seeing; 1) Superman's Cape torn or burnt off, 2) beard
>growing, 3) married, 4)5)him Superman, bleeding. Now, to me, that is not the
1) artistic choice. I think his gaining a tougher cape post-Cleric was
mostly the new artists getting sick of the torn capes.
2) eh, I don't care either way.
3) married: this is _good_. He's mid-30s, might as well have him not just
date Lois or Lana for the rest of time. And it's miles ahead of the
Silver Age stories where both Lois and Lana spent all their time trying to
trip him into revealing his secret id.
5) If Superman bleeds, you know he's struggling. That he's struggling
provides dramatic tension.
>embarrassing. Superman should: 1) be able to function in space forever if
>he choose to. 2) have a Super brain to match his Super physical power 3) an
>indestructible costume 4) a smaller S emblem.
I just plain disagree with all four here, but what's up with #4?
Byrne's redesigned costume was a great way to spiff it up for modern
tastes without going too far.
>God like powers are great and Superman should have them. Let the true Man of
>Steel Return as the Galactic Guardian of the universe. Superman is the
>Flagship of DC treat him as such.
Y'know, it always bugged me that one of the DCU's greatest minds
couldn't cure the Kents of the disease that killed 'em. In fact, given
his various powers and power levels, you'd think Superboy could have
handcrafted enough nanomachines to cure his parents.
--
'"tort reform" -- the ongoing effort by corporations to immunize
themselves from legal responsibility for causing injuries or death.'
-- TomPaine staff [http://www.tompaine.com/features/2001/05/08/3.html]
jay
>>> Superman, however, is arguably more
>>> relevant as a character in our post 9-11
>>> world.
>>
>> I don't see that at all! As the government
>> begins, more and more, to take on a patina
>> of fascism, an Establishment figure--and
>> Superman is the ultimate Establishment
>> figure--begins to seem more and more like
>> a sinister figure.
>
> 'S funny, when you consider the origins of
> the character. I have one of those books
> put out in the 80s that collected a couple
> of good stories from each decade, and one
> of the earliest ones had him stopping a war
> and threatening an arms dealer who was
> selling to both sides.
Don't get me wrong--the Golden Age Superman
would be EXTREMELY relevant today. The
original creation of Seigel and Shuster was
absolutely bristling with potential--virtually every
issue had him addressing, in some way, a social
ill. It's the later Big Blue Boyscout God version of
Superman--all S&S characteristics excised from
the character--who is the Establshment figure.
> There's certainly still potential for a Superman
> who stands up for the oppressed.
Absolutely. I'd love to see it, for a change, but
try suggesting it around here and you end up
besieged by hordes of rabid "fanboy"-types
(or should I say stereotypes, as that's what
they seem determned to live up to).
j...@mindspring.com
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:26:39 -0700, "j...@mindspring.com"
> <j...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > And Byrne reboot accomplished nothing but
> > tell a much less powerful Superman a shadow
> > of his former self story.
>
> Byrne gave us one of the most consistently
> good runs the character has ever had. He
> doesn't have anything ot apologize for.
Except Changing a character for change sake
> > I for one hate seeing; 1) Superman's Cape
> > torn or burnt off, 2) beard growing, 3) married,
> > 4)5)him Superman, bleeding. Now, to me, that
> > is not the real Superman I grew up knowing,
> > makes him appear too weak.
>
> Yes, far better that he remain 30 years old,
> indestructible, clean shaven, well-dressed,
> sweet smelling,
Correct!!!!!!!!!
lonely, oafish, boring, and
> stuck in "adventures" that aren't worth a
> shit. Forever and ever.
Not necessarily so.
>
> > Superman should: 1) be able to function in
> > space forever if he choose to.
>
> ...and this power comes from where?
The very Cosmos it self....space is just full of energy.
>
> > 2) have a Super brain to match his Super
> > physical power
>
> Yes, he doesn't need to learn things like
> mere mortals--he has a super-brain.
>
> > 3) an indestructible costume
>
> How and why?
Because he should have it. He is Superman.
>
> > DC please reboot Superman and set
> > things straight by taking care of the
> > above.
>
> Even Superman couldn't hold his breath
> waiting that long.
This version of Superman shouldn't need to breathe
Johanna Draper Carlson
> I'd be bored out of my socks. I think anybody dressing up in spandex
> and running around beating up petty criminals is an embarrasingly
> stupid way of operating.
Superman is a fantasy. "Somewhere out there is an all-powerful guy who
will protect us and right the wrongs we can't deal with." Whether
mugging, wife-beating, or the previously cited evil mine owner.
The fights take more than one panel because we enjoy seeing the injust
get their just punishment.
> His character is next to impossible to believe today.
It's not about belief, it's about hope. Superman is MORE relevant today
than ever because many people feel powerless about the threats we face.
On another note -- has anyone talked about the real hurdle good writers
face when dealing with Superman? Few writers want to work as part of a
team in four-part lockstep, mandated by editorial.
--
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Newly updated: True Story Swear to God, Private Beach, Scary Godmother,
Akiko, K Chronicles, Reviews of Batman, Quicken Forbidden,
Justice League Adventures, Supernatural Law, Triple Dare
Curt
>This version of Superman shouldn't need to breathe
Then he's not even a man. This just sounds like something that
would be found on a Denis Leary CD.
"Yeah, well, when *I* was a superhero I didn't even NEED to
breathe!"
--
Curt
Curt
> I just plain disagree with all four here, but what's up with #4?
[#4 = smaller S emblem]
>Byrne's redesigned costume was a great way to spiff it up for modern
>tastes without going too far.
Byrne's S was fine, imo, but the current S covers the entire
torso it seems and I am not in favor of continuing with the red
and black. Give me the yellow and red any and every day.
--
Curt
Sean Daugherty
> > And Byrne reboot accomplished nothing but
> > tell a much less powerful Superman a shadow
> > of his former self story.
>
> Byrne gave us one of the most consistently
> good runs the character has ever had. He
> doesn't have anything ot apologize for.
Agreed. I didn't like some of the things about Byrne's run (the
removal of Superboy and Supergirl really screwed with LSH, which is a
personal favorite of mine), but he produced an entertaining,
well-written, and, for a change, dynamic portrayal of the character
that was a far cry from the stagnation the character had settled into
through most of the early 1980s.
> > 2) have a Super brain to match his Super
> > physical power
>
> Yes, he doesn't need to learn things like
> mere mortals--he has a super-brain.
This was always my least favorite of the pre-Byrne Superman's powers,
and the only one I'm unqualifiably glad was removed.
jay
<joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
> On another note -- has anyone talked about the
> real hurdle good writers face when dealing with
> Superman? Few writers want to work as part of
> a team in four-part lockstep, mandated by editorial.
That was one of the big problems I left out of
my list earlier. Besides further discouraging what
is, even without that factor, one of the most
thankless jobs in mainstream superhero books,
that also makes all of the books only as good
as the worst creative team on any of them.
jay
>> This version of Superman shouldn't need to
>> breathe
>
> Then he's not even a man. This just sounds
> like something that would be found on a
> Denis Leary CD.
I thought the comment was so hilarious it should
be made into a monument or something--One Of
The Stupidest Things Ever Said.
Bill Bickel
Finest story was the one in which Superman and Batman compete to discover
one anotehr's secret identities, and Superman can't handle the fact that he
ISN'T the mental equal to Batman (and if you think about it, what would be
the point of these team-ups if he were?)
Superman can have a photographic memory and an unlimited capacity for
memorization, but that doesn't necessarily make him super-smart.
Bill Bickel
http://www.comicsidontunderstand.com
"j...@mindspring.com" <j...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:pgX89.108321$EJ4.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
jay
Daugherty) wrote:
>>> And Byrne reboot accomplished nothing but
>>> tell a much less powerful Superman a shadow
>>> of his former self story.
>>
>> Byrne gave us one of the most consistently
>> good runs the character has ever had. He
>> doesn't have anything ot apologize for.
>
> Agreed. I didn't like some of the things about
> Byrne's run (the removal of Superboy and
> Supergirl really screwed with LSH, which is a
> personal favorite of mine), but he produced
> an entertaining, well-written, and, for a change,
> dynamic portrayal of the character that was a
> far cry from the stagnation the character had
> settled into through most of the early 1980s.
How monumentally awful much of Superman had
been for years before Byrne is a point usually left
out of those who whine about Byrne only
implementing change for the sake of change.
To be fair to Byrne on the Legion thing, he did
raise the issue with Paul Levitz before leaving
out Superboy and Levitz assured him that he
had a way around it and that it would not be a
problem.
>>> 2) have a Super brain to match his Super
>>> physical power
>>
>> Yes, he doesn't need to learn things like
>> mere mortals--he has a super-brain.
>
> This was always my least favorite of the
> pre-Byrne Superman's powers, and the
> only one I'm unqualifiably glad was removed.
Over the decades, Superman had amassed such
a bag of bullshit gimmick "powers" that he could
do literally anything, and there was rarely any
explanation even offered for any of it (he was
even capable of shape-shifting, at one point).
That's another huge set of problems Byrne fixed.
jay
>> the 'sand Superman' saga in which the former
>> Superman lost a chunk of his powers.
>
> Would someone please point me in the right
> direction for more info on the 'sand Superman'
> saga? Issue numbers? Was this Curt Swan? I
> remember an issue that ended with Superman
> flying over an area and feeling suddenly weak
> and then a sand Superman rising from the
> ground? That's where it ended as I recall.
> Where/what issues does the story continue?
The very good "sand Superman" story ran in
Superman #233-242. Swan and Murphy Anderson
did the art chores, with Denny O'Neil writing. At the
time it was published, it was the first Superman story
in about 25 years that was worth the paper it was
printed on.
jay
wrote:
>>> The Day of the Superman is over. He's an
>>> anachronism, an antiquity.
>>
>> This theme has actually been addressed quite
>> a bit in the comics in recent times. It was dealt
>> with in Waid's Kingdom Come.
>
> ... which, more than most stories I've read, says
> it aloud.
Yeah, it's just about the last story in the world
anyone should cite if they're arguing that the
Big Blue Boyscout God Superman *isn't* an
anachronism. That Waid was unwilling to
embrace this absolutely unavoidably obvious
conclusion is exactly why KC crashed to earth
and shattered into a million pieces in its final
chapter (ruining what, in my mind, could have
been a real masterpiece).
>> Superman, however, is arguably more
>> relevant as a character in our post 9-11
>> world.
>
> Argue then, how so?
Hope he takes this up.
Andrew Ryan Chang
Oh. I figured the red & black was temporary anyways. On casual
glances, the emblem doesn't seem to have taken over his torso, but I don't
care to look too closely at the most cartoony of the S books. (and
/there's/ a whole 'nother complaint.)
--
"We believe in opportunity for all Americans: Rich and poor, black and
white...."
--George W. Bush (speech at Bob Jones University, 2/2/00)
The Operative
> hte...@pacbell.net (The Operative) wrote:
>
> > I'd be bored out of my socks. I think anybody dressing up in spandex
> > and running around beating up petty criminals is an embarrasingly
> > stupid way of operating.
>
> Superman is a fantasy. "Somewhere out there is an all-powerful guy who
> will protect us and right the wrongs we can't deal with." Whether
> mugging, wife-beating, or the previously cited evil mine owner.
Johanna, how I've missed our talks!
I can see, say, Nightwing beating up petty crooks. Muggers, bank
robbers, and all. Especially now -- he's a cop, and all, so it saves
him work in uniform. Okay. That's fairly plausible. A billionaire
seems a bit much -- why get his hands dirty? Money can fix more than
fists, we've seen that. He could field an army of Batman (and in one
elseworlds, he did). Wouldn't that be more effective?
As for Supes, my concern is with what I call an appropriate response.
If you have to bang a nail into a wall, would you use an aircraft
carrier? No, you use a hammer. Superman versus a mugger or a bank
robber is like pounding a nail with an aircraft carrier. It's not
what I consider an appropriate response.
> The fights take more than one panel because we enjoy seeing the injust
> get their just punishment.
That's a POV I can respect. The morality plays are a big part of
superhero comics' backbone.
> > His character is next to impossible to believe today.
>
> It's not about belief, it's about hope. Superman is MORE relevant today
> than ever because many people feel powerless about the threats we face.
Superman engenders no hope in me. I doubt he engenders hope in
Shaquille O'Neill, and he has a superman _tattoo_, sanctioned by the
gods of AOL Time Warner. In my eyes, Superman is about power and
control, and I bought far more of his planet-juggling comics than I
buy of his whiny, "Muhammad X said I am a racist!" or "Blah, is that
Dracula?" comics of today. I do believe, overall sales share a
similar trend -- the Super-sales of my youth vs. the Super-sales of
today, also recognizing the changes in the industry and ecomony, blah
blah blah.
To _some_, Superman is a symbol of hope, to people who are invested in
and like the status quo. I was headed into the Los Angeles streets in
1992, ready to burn something down. Something corporate. Something
rich. Superman is a symbol of everything that's wrong _to me_. The
ultimate occupation force, the eternal logjam towards change. The
threats I face are the same as they've been my whole life, and the
only time Superman was part of an inspiration to me was in the LSH.
> On another note -- has anyone talked about the real hurdle good writers
> face when dealing with Superman? Few writers want to work as part of a
> team in four-part lockstep, mandated by editorial.
Now that's a big thing, good point: due to the mandates of licensees
and a heavy-handed corporate policy, Superman _cannot_ change, any
more than Mickey Mouse or Ronald McDonald can change. The best
stories in the world can only go so far, or give up and call
themselves "Elseworlds." Signing on for Supes means accepting a
certain-sized yard to play in, no bigger. The creative mind can chafe
in such conditions, true, despite the prestige and the money (I'd have
to assume it's one of the better page rates going). It would be
interesting to hear insights from writers who have taken on the
challenge as well as those who have left the gauntlet on the ground.
jay
wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong--the Golden Age Superman
>> would be EXTREMELY relevant today. The
>> original creation of Seigel and Shuster was
>> absolutely bristling with potential--virtually every
>> issue had him addressing, in some way, a social
>> ill. It's the later Big Blue Boyscout God version of
>> Superman--all S&S characteristics excised from
>> the character--who is the Establshment figure.
>
> And then of course there was the issue where
> he beat up some foreign athletes for making
> anti-American remarks.
Where did that happen? I read that here
once not long ago (perhaps a post by you?),
but I haven't seen a reference for it. It sounds
suspiciously like an apocryphal story.
> Even the scenes of him beating up thugs
> are scary when you consider that the people
> most like that today are police officers who
> beat up suspects.
One can say exactly the same about Spiderman,
Batman, Daredevil, and practically any other
superhero character, and the comment would
be just as silly (and as much lacking in a point)
as it is with Superman.
> (Do you believe in Miranda rights?
Uh... yeah.
> I'm sure that if they had existed in the
> 1930's, the GA Superman wouldn't.)
The rights existed; its just that people
weren't told they had them. The question
of such rights has no relevance wrt to GA
Superman, because, again, he was an
anti-Establishment figure, not a law
enforcement officer, and he made it a
point never to hit anyone who didn't
deserve it.
> Think of the Golden Age Superman as
> basically a one-man angry mob.
He actually stopped more than one angry
mob from commiting mayhem in his day.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>As for Supes, my concern is with what I call an appropriate response.
>If you have to bang a nail into a wall, would you use an aircraft
>carrier? No, you use a hammer. Superman versus a mugger or a bank
>robber is like pounding a nail with an aircraft carrier. It's not
>what I consider an appropriate response.
But Supes himself takes pains not to use excessive force; he
doesn't even break bones of nonpowered criminals if he can help it. It
may be that he's too "godlike" to deal with street crime, but he's never
been shown to react inappropriately or excessively to it AFAIK.
--
You are standing in an open field west of a white
house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Think of the Golden Age Superman as basically a one-man angry mob.
So Spider Jerusalem is his closest descendent? Hmm...
Johanna Draper Carlson
Thank you, and ditto!
> I can see, say, Nightwing beating up petty crooks. Muggers, bank
> robbers, and all.
Even people who just happened to be in the wrong place when Nightwing's
mad and needs to take it out on someone.
(That Chuck Dixon story REALLY annoyed me. Sorry. I digress.)
> As for Supes, my concern is with what I call an appropriate response.
> If you have to bang a nail into a wall, would you use an aircraft
> carrier? No, you use a hammer. Superman versus a mugger or a bank
> robber is like pounding a nail with an aircraft carrier.
Petty crooks only respect force. You show them a force that they'll
never be able to outfight or outwit or escape, and that shows them the
error of their ways.
Again, it's wish fulfillment. Most people do not face interstellar war
as a daily fear; their fear is the mugger or the rapist or the loss of
what they've worked so hard to get (which is why superhero fights that
destroy the buildings around them are also missing the point). Superman
is a big brother; "I'll take care of those bullies for you".
> It's not what I consider an appropriate response.
You're not supposed to identify with the crooks, you know. You're
supposed to say "yay! The bad guy is stopped!" :)
> Superman engenders no hope in me. ...
> In my eyes, Superman is about power and control
How much of the earliest Superman have you read?
I agree with you, the cooption of Superman into the Big Blue Policeman
was the beginning of the character's downfall. The American Way was
supposed to be about individualism and achievement, not enforcing
sociopolitical doctrine.
The earliest Superman broke into the governor's mansion because the
wrong person was about to be executed.
> Superman is a symbol of everything that's wrong _to me_. The
> ultimate occupation force, the eternal logjam towards change.
That's a reaction more towards Superman-the-product than the core of the
character (as I see it).
> Signing on for Supes means accepting a
> certain-sized yard to play in, no bigger.
And forced playmates.
Servant of Maleldil
9218d6ef.02082...@posting.google.com, "The Operative"
<hte...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Superman engenders no hope in me. I doubt he engenders hope in
> Shaquille O'Neill, and he has a superman _tattoo_, sanctioned by the
> gods of AOL Time Warner. In my eyes, Superman is about power and
> control, [and]... people who are invested in
> and like the status quo.[...] Superman is a symbol of everything that's
> wrong _to me_. The
> ultimate occupation force, the eternal logjam towards change.
Superman is not about (or should not be about) power, control, the status
quo, the establishment, or anything like that. Superman is about (or should
be about) _right_and_wrong_ - supporting the status quo when it's right,
opposing it when it's wrong; supporting "the establishment" when it's right,
opposing it when it's wrong; doing what's right and fighting what's wrong no
matter the personal cost. THAT'S what Superman is to me, and what being a
HERO means.
--
Denes House - hous...@borg.com
The last thing that one should take "on faith" is faith itself. Take the
stock market "on faith", take science "on faith", but for heaven's sake
have reasons for trusting (or not trusting) in God!
Josh Dull
> Superman can have a photographic memory and an unlimited capacity for
> memorization, but that doesn't necessarily make him super-smart.
>
> Bill Bickel
> http://www.comicsidontunderstand.com
I agree Superman shouldn't be super-smart. I can see him have excellent
photographic memory, total recall, and the ability to hold lots of info.
He shouldn't be on par with Batman in regards to detective skills. But as
an investigative reporter, he should be better about uncovering the truth
then
he has been depicted.
But for some reason it seems that many figure since he played football he
has to
be dumb. He can only solve problems by hitting it. And that is the worse
thing
anyone has done to him.
Josh
Josh Dull
> The very good "sand Superman" story ran in
> Superman #233-242. Swan and Murphy Anderson
> did the art chores, with Denny O'Neil writing. At the
> time it was published, it was the first Superman story
> in about 25 years that was worth the paper it was
> printed on.
I know I'm jumping in late here but their is something that needs to be
pointed out.
We are mistaking personal preference for fact. And if someone has a
dissenting
opinion we don't accept it but feel the need to tear into them.
If we want people to listen to us and treat us with respect we have to do
the same
to them.
Personally I enjoyed both the Silver Age Superman and the Modern Superman.
I don't see why one is better then the other, or why fans of one must deride
those
who enjoy the other.
I loved seeing Superman casually juggling icebergs and writting in his
journal by scratching
words into metal with his finger. But then I loved seeing Superman
struggling to push
a nuclear missle and being winded from going into space.
To me both of them are Superman, not because of their powers or power
levels. But
because they have these powers and they use them to fight for what is right.
Whether
it is a God among men who upholds "Truth, Justice, and the American way" or
a someone
aware of their limitations yet continues to tackles problems, even if they
are more then he thinks
he can handle.
Superman has been great in all of his incarnations and he will continue to
be great long after we
are dust.
Josh
jay
>> It sounds
>> suspiciously like an apocryphal story.
>
> What a prententious way of calling someone
> a liar...
In case Ken may be mislead by this poor fool,
I wasn't calling you a liar.
> This conversation would be a lot more
> interesting
...if you just went away, so why don't you do
that?
The Operative
> The Operative <hte...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >As for Supes, my concern is with what I call an appropriate response.
> >If you have to bang a nail into a wall, would you use an aircraft
> >carrier? No, you use a hammer. Superman versus a mugger or a bank
> >robber is like pounding a nail with an aircraft carrier. It's not
> >what I consider an appropriate response.
>
> But Supes himself takes pains not to use excessive force; he
> doesn't even break bones of nonpowered criminals if he can help it. It
> may be that he's too "godlike" to deal with street crime, but he's never
> been shown to react inappropriately or excessively to it AFAIK.
You misunderstand me, mon ami. I'm not saying Superman doesn't use
appropriate levels of force. I'm saying he himself _is_ an
inappropriate response to street crime. If he can hear crickets
copulating in Compton, really, is the best use of his time stopping a
purse snatcher? He wants to do it, sure, but only when he's got time.
He can do it, yeah, when he's not busy. I just don't think it's his
bag, baby, and I don't think it should be.
No matter how gently it pounds the nail, an aircraft carrier is still
the wrong tool for the job.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>You misunderstand me, mon ami. I'm not saying Superman doesn't use
>appropriate levels of force. I'm saying he himself _is_ an
>inappropriate response to street crime. If he can hear crickets
>copulating in Compton, really, is the best use of his time stopping a
>purse snatcher? He wants to do it, sure, but only when he's got time.
> He can do it, yeah, when he's not busy. I just don't think it's his
>bag, baby, and I don't think it should be.
I guess so, but it just somehow seems wrong of him to ignore petty
crime as being beneath him. Why not pitch in and help with the small
problems too? (not to the extent of Astro City's Samaritan, who
almost could not ever take a moment away from superduping.)
--
"_Entharion the Wise:_ According to earlier, erroneous entries in the
Encyclopedia Frobozzica, Entharion and his legendary blade Grueslayer eradi-
cated grues from the face of the world. Unfortunately for many adventurers,
this is not true." -Encyclopedia Frobozzica.
jay
> Listen, I don't mind that you seem to hate
> Superman.
A conclusion that can only be reached by
not, in fact, reading what I write.
> I don't mind that you think 99% of the
> Superman stories ever written are crap
It's more like 90%. You're wrong to assume
this means anything, though--99% of everything
is crap. When the percentage is better--as it is
with Superman--you have something worthy of
encouragement.
> (although I am scratching my head over the
> 25 year period in which not a single story was
> supposedly worth the paper it was printed on).
The Mort Weisinger era is the Dark Age,
insofar as Superman is concerned.
> Much of your argument centers around
> his power levels.
No, it doesn't, but a lot of the problems
with the character revolve around it.
> So Superman's powers DON'T make it more
> difficult to write a story. That brings us to another
> of your assertions -- that Superman is harder to
> write & that good writers don't want to take the
> job. You've said this again and again. PLEASE
> BACK IT UP!
"...Julie Schwartz, Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams,
Murphy Anderson, Carmine Infantino, and others
made a point to me over and over -- as if they had
rehearsed it together and all decided to impress
me with it individually -- that it was the general
belief that Superman was the hardest character
to write."
The words of Elliot S! Maggin, who said he didn't
find it that difficult to write Superman, but that
no one besides he and Cary Bates wanted to
touch the character with a 10-foot pole.
> I've never gotten the impression from any writer
> (via interviews, columns, etc.) that they didn't
> like working on Superman.
Both Len Wein and Denny O'Neil--and this was
O'Neil in his prime, not the hollow shell he
became--dropped out of writing Superman
because the character was simply too powerful
to do anything with. John Byrne dropped Supes
because the suits at DC showed their asses
about everything he tried to do with it.
quimico
>"...Julie Schwartz, Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams,
>Murphy Anderson, Carmine Infantino, and others
>made a point to me over and over -- as if they had
>rehearsed it together and all decided to impress
>me with it individually -- that it was the general
>belief that Superman was the hardest character
>to write."
>
>The words of Elliot S! Maggin, who said he didn't
>find it that difficult to write Superman, but that
>no one besides he and Cary Bates wanted to
>touch the character with a 10-foot pole.
The problem with Superman are his premises. Maggin understood that,
and that is why he was at easy with the character. Most comics writers,
even some pretty competent comics writers, have the mind too firmly set
on the "standard" superhero premises and just can't make the mental
leap to superman's.
Superheroic tales, nearly all of them, project the philosophical conflict,
"good" vs. "evil" on the "concrete" fight of the superhero vs. super villain.
Good Superman tales, on the other hand, bring back the fight to abstract level,
projecting it inside Superman's mind, making it a matter of good decisions cs. bad
decisions. And that is indeed better than a "classic" superhero fight,
because the reader is compelled identify with the character, and
"make the decision" alongside him.
The superman premise is "a superhero who does have power enough to
win most struggles by a comfortable margin" and the
implicit question is "Then, what if ?"... A question that has many other
questions buried inside:
"Then, why can't we say that the hero got it made?"
"Then, can we say that all ways to win a struggle are equivalent? "
And that is a very complex question, one that deserves well-written
tales to answer it. Luckily, it also provides an infinitude of
entertaining ways it can be answered, because the philosophical
question "If you have the power to do what is right, how far are
you obligated to go at righteous-doing?" has many reasonable answers
and many pretty deep issues underneath.
jay
wrote:
>>> Even the scenes of him beating up thugs
>>> are scary when you consider that the people
>>> most like that today are police officers who
>>> beat up suspects.
>>
>> One can say exactly the same about Spiderman,
>> Batman, Daredevil, and practically any other
>> superhero character, and the comment would
>> be just as silly (and as much lacking in a point)
>> as it is with Superman.
>
> Most superheroes try to catch villains and
> leave the punishment to the law. They don't
> administer punishment themselves and would
> never beat up a villain just because he
> deserves it.
All of these characters, Superman included,
go out and rough up criminals (frequently
heavily armed criminals) in exactly the same
way and turn them over to the law. In no way
can that be made to equate to police brutality,
where the one doing the roughing up IS the
law, which is supposed to regard criminal
suspects as innocent until proven guilty.
>>> (Do you believe in Miranda rights?
>>
>> The question
>> of such rights has no relevance wrt to GA
>> Superman, because, again, he was an
>> anti-Establishment figure, not a law
>> enforcement officer, and he made it a
>> point never to hit anyone who didn't
>> deserve it.
>
> Which is like saying that it's okay for the police
> to beat up suspects as long as they only beat
> up suspects who deserve it. Yeah, he's not a
> law enforcement officer, but how does that
> actually make a difference? Do anti-establishment
> figures get to beat up bad guys that the police
> don't?
Again, police brutality earns it's status as particularly
reprehensible not for its brutality, but because it is
commited by a representative of the organized
authority of the public, an authority which judges the
suspects as guilty until proven innocent. Superman
is just an individual, and his acts of violence have
to be judged as one would judge any other act of
violence by any other individual. I offered my
assessment. If you have a different one, offer yours.
But you're attempting to compare apples to mud,
here, by bringing in police brutality.
> (And remember that anti-establishment is not
> necessarily pro-you. In many places, the KKK
> is anti-establishment.)
You're almost catching on, here. In the case of
Superman, he is pro-you, or is, for the most part.
There are times when that isn't clear, and I've
actually enjoyed that ambiguity that occasionally
pops up in the Golden Age stories.
jay
wrote:
>> Again, police brutality earns it's status as
>> particularly reprehensible not for its brutality,
>> but because it is commited by a representative
>> of the organized authority of the public, an
>> authority which judges the suspects as guilty
>> until proven innocent.
>
> So what's the difference between an authority
> judging someone as guilty until proven innocent,
> and Superman doing exactly the same thing?
Or Spiderman and Batman and Daredevil and all
the rest doing the same thing. You keep trying to
make this a critique of Superman, when all you're
offering is a critique of all costumed superfolk.
Aside from the complete difference in principle
behind the acts (which I earlier explained and
think you understood, even though you're
pretending otherwise), their use of violence to
subdue lawbreakers is also fundamentally
different from those bearing state authority going
out and beating a helpless human being to a
bloody pulp (Rodney King) or taking a suspect
in custody into the bathroom to knock out his
teeth and shove a plunger handle up his ass
until it ruptures his bladder (Abner Louima).
> The only reason I can think of is that the police
> have a lot more power than an individual, but
> Superman has a lot more power than a normal
> individual too.
As do Spiderman, Iron Man, Wonder Woman,
and the same group, similarly too large to be
listed.
>>> (And remember that anti-establishment is not
>>> necessarily pro-you. In many places, the KKK
>>> is anti-establishment.)
>>
>> You're almost catching on, here. In the case
>> of Superman, he is pro-you, or is, for the most
>> part. There are times when that isn't clear,
>> and I've actually enjoyed that ambiguity that
>> occasionally pops up in the Golden Age
>> stories.
>
> That story with Superman beating up those
> foreign athletes wasn't put in there to make
> Superman ambiguous. It was put in there
> because the sentiment of the day--yes, among
> normal people--was that those who make
> anti-American remarks are bad guys and
> deserve to be punished.
Whether it was put in there for that the
purpose of making him ambiguous is
completely beside the point--it DOES make
him an ambiguous character. I would find
that sort of thing reprehensible (and would
disagree with some of the other things
Superman did, as well), and if I were writing
him, I wouldn't have him do that. I would
have had him doing other things that would
be very controversial, though.
LArry Stanley
jay wrote:
>
> >
> > That story with Superman beating up those
> > foreign athletes wasn't put in there to make
> > Superman ambiguous. It was put in there
> > because the sentiment of the day--yes, among
> > normal people--was that those who make
> > anti-American remarks are bad guys and
> > deserve to be punished.
>
> Whether it was put in there for that the
> purpose of making him ambiguous is
> completely beside the point--it DOES make
> him an ambiguous character. I would find
> that sort of thing reprehensible (and would
> disagree with some of the other things
> Superman did, as well), and if I were writing
> him, I wouldn't have him do that. I would
> have had him doing other things that would
> be very controversial, though.
So, let me see if I understand this.... the year is 1940 maybe 1941. The
United States is on guard against Fifth Columnists. We are warned to
report suspicious activity especially around Military of other important
sites.
Flags wave from buildings, patriotism is at an all time high, we (the
nation) is almost chomping at the bit to get into action against Hitler
and his little thugs; some Americans have even joined forgien armies to
help in this fight.
And you would have a problem with a hero that is supposed to be
epitomizing what it is to fight for "Truth, Justice and the American
Way" not stand up for his country when someone is denigrating it?
Hope you enjoyed the book you were working on, because either the
character would not be yours much longer, or the title would be long
gone.
While what Superman did and the reasons he did it are only known to the
reader, think about Superman for just a second. He knows only that he is
an American. That he was raised by farmers, who tried to instill in him
that he lived in a great nation.
He knows inside that in his 'secret identity' he will not be able to do
much against this enemy that is symbolic of everything that he stands
-against-..... but, he also knows that he, as Superman, has the power to
stand up for the country he loves, that his parents loved.
Superman did what thousands of adults wanted to do, but were unable to
do. Most citizens never (as far as they knew) came into contact with
enemy agents. So, they worked behind the lines, doing their jobs, trying
to make it easier for the men and women fighting that war.
In their minds, though... they had the chance to become hero's. They
could swing that punch with Superman as someone talked about how bad
America was because we allowed free elections or the right to choose
what church we went to.
A person who was declared "4F" could stand beside Superman as he
destroyed the very people that person feared, or hated. A Jewish child,
a black kid, an Oriental, poor white kids.... they could all believe
that there was -something- worth fighting for and defending in this
nation, because they had a hero they could look at, even if it was only
a four color one.
Maybe not for them, but for their children. Or even their childrens
children.
Superman was a *Man* as well as super. He was a patriot. He loved his
country. And, like a patriot of that time, he stood up for her.
Oh, and just so you know... Superman, Action Comics and other patriotic
characters were sent to the various branches of the Army, Navy and the
Marine Corp for years, because it was thought they promoted morale and
helped a soldiers mental health.
We needed a hero back then who stood up for America. We still do. We
don't have very many.
But back then, in the months before American lives finally entered that
war, America needed someone to remind us now and then what we were
fighting against. Superman, Captain America, Uncle Sam, and a bunch of
others helped us to remember.
And when America entered that war, we gained flesh and blood heroes,
maybe some of them inspired by something they had read or a movie they
had seen. We may never know.
But, to decide that Superman 'did wrong' by standing up for his country
is silly. You have to remember the times, and what was going on in
America and the rest of the world.
Had he not done what he did, he would not have been fighting for what he
believed in.
LArry
the Ultimate Fanboy
--
LArry Stanley
Editor PCU
the Ultimate Fanboy
Science Fiction, Horror, Comics, Videos and Movies. Always accepting
amateur articles, art and fiction.
http://www.penguincomics.net
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/P_C_U/
ultimate fanboy/PCU/Penguin Comics Unlimited TM 2002 by Larry Stanley
jay
wrote:
>>> So what's the difference between an authority
>>> judging someone as guilty until proven innocent,
>>> and Superman doing exactly the same thing?
>>
>> Or Spiderman and Batman and Daredevil and all
>> the rest doing the same thing. You keep trying to
>> make this a critique of Superman, when all you're
>> offering is a critique of all costumed superfolk.
>
> The difference is that most superheroes don't try
> to play judge and jury. You'd never see Spiderman
> beating someone up because he deserves it, unless
> it was intended to be a case of Spiderman stepping
> over the line and doing something wrong.
You don't see Superman doing that, either
(except in the one incident you mentioned).
His use of violence to subdue criminals mirrors,
in every way, the same use of violence by all
of these other characters.
>> Aside from the complete difference in principle
>> behind the acts (which I earlier explained and
>> think you understood, even though you're
>> pretending otherwise), their use of violence to
>> subdue lawbreakers is also fundamentally
>> different from those bearing state authority going
>> out and beating a helpless human being to a
>> bloody pulp (Rodney King) or taking a suspect
>> in custody into the bathroom to knock out his
>> teeth and shove a plunger handle up his ass
>> until it ruptures his bladder (Abner Louima).
>
> So you wouldn't mind a story where Superman
> does those things, since he's not an authority
> and the problem with police brutality is only
> that it's being done by police?
As I've been saying since this exchange began,
when Superman or anyone else does those things,
we can judge them as individuals. In the case of
the athletes, I judge such an act to be reprehensible
(as I've said before).
>>> The only reason I can think of is that the police
>>> have a lot more power than an individual, but
>>> Superman has a lot more power than a normal
>>> individual too.
>>
>> As do Spiderman, Iron Man, Wonder Woman,
>> and the same group, similarly too large to be
>> listed.
>
> Those characters are careful about how they use
> their power. They wouldn't beat people up
> because they think those people deserve being
> beaten up.
Neither would Superman. You're talking about a
single incident where even you would have to
concede he was acting grossly out of character.
jay
<ultimat...@penguincomics.net> wrote:
>>> That story with Superman beating up those
>>> foreign athletes wasn't put in there to make
>>> Superman ambiguous. It was put in there
>>> because the sentiment of the day--yes, among
>>> normal people--was that those who make
>>> anti-American remarks are bad guys and
>>> deserve to be punished.
>>
>> Whether it was put in there for that the
>> purpose of making him ambiguous is
>> completely beside the point--it DOES make
>> him an ambiguous character. I would find
>> that sort of thing reprehensible (and would
>> disagree with some of the other things
>> Superman did, as well), and if I were writing
>> him, I wouldn't have him do that. I would
>> have had him doing other things that would
>> be very controversial, though.
>
> So, let me see if I understand this....
Well, you've done this thread a service, even
if you didn't realize it. Ken was talking about a
situation from an early issue of Superman
wherein Supes actually hit some foreign athletes
who were making anti-American comments.
That's reprehensible, in my view. Here, you've
presented, in great detail, the opposing view,
and have shown how such a thing probably
worked its way into a Superman book at that
time (though it was extremely out of character).
> stands--against-..... but, he also knows that
(Hitting someone, because they disagree with your
opinion isn't standing up for one's country, unless
one's country is a fascist dictatorship. Such horseshit
has no place in the United States of America.)
Ken Arromdee
jay <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The difference is that most superheroes don't try
>> to play judge and jury. You'd never see Spiderman
>> beating someone up because he deserves it, unless
>> it was intended to be a case of Spiderman stepping
>> over the line and doing something wrong.
>You don't see Superman doing that, either
>(except in the one incident you mentioned).
>His use of violence to subdue criminals mirrors,
>in every way, the same use of violence by all
>of these other characters.
You yourself said that Superman never hit anyone "who didn't deserve it".
You also said that police brutality is particularly reprehensible not because
of its brutality, but because police are authority figures who should not
judge people as guilty until proven innocent. Which implies that if you're
*not* an authority figure, it's okay to judge someone as guilty until proven
innocent.
>> Those characters are careful about how they use
>> their power. They wouldn't beat people up
>> because they think those people deserve being
>> beaten up.
>Neither would Superman. You're talking about a
>single incident where even you would have to
>concede he was acting grossly out of character.
My comment about people deserving it was a reference to your own remark, not to
that story. And it *wasn't* out of character. Superman was acting out what
the common man wished he could do, just like in every other Superman story.
Because you disagree with Superman this time doesn't mean that he's 'out of
character'. It means that sometimes the common man is wrong. And when the
common man is a Superman, he's super-wrong.
And there are other examples. For instance, in Action #16, Superman shuts
down a gambling ring, and even crushes a man's watch to threaten him so he'll
stop gambling--i.e. he prevents people from performing purely consensual
activities. The gamblers are of course depicted as criminals, and some of the
gambling is rigged, but Superman doesn't shut them down because it's rigged--
he shuts it down as a 1930's version of the War on Drugs--Gambling is Bad.
--
Ken Arromdee / arro...@rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"There are some corners of the universe that have bred the most terrible
things, things which act against everything that we believe in. They must be
fought." --Dr. Who, "The Moonbase"
John
Yup. Creepy.
Andrew Ryan Chang
>jay <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>You don't see Superman doing that, either
>>(except in the one incident you mentioned).
>>His use of violence to subdue criminals mirrors,
>>in every way, the same use of violence by all
>>of these other characters.
>
>You yourself said that Superman never hit anyone "who didn't deserve it".
>You also said that police brutality is particularly reprehensible not because
>of its brutality, but because police are authority figures who should not
>judge people as guilty until proven innocent. Which implies that if you're
>*not* an authority figure, it's okay to judge someone as guilty until proven
>innocent.
The modern era Superman (I specify cause I think we're going back
and forth on modern and Golden Age) isn't judging criminals and meting out
punishment, for the most part. He applies a *minimal* level of violence
in order to *subdue* criminals *caught in the act*.
--
Hank: By the way, Homer, what's your least favorite country: Italy or France?
Homer: France.
Hank: [chuckles] Nobody ever says Italy. [sets the coordinates of a giant
laser gun]
jay
>>> You don't see Superman doing that, either
>>> (except in the one incident you mentioned).
>>> His use of violence to subdue criminals mirrors,
>>> in every way, the same use of violence by all
>>> of these other characters.
>>
>> You yourself said that Superman never hit
>> anyone "who didn't deserve it". You also said
>> that police brutality is particularly reprehensible
>> not because of its brutality, but because police
>> are authority figures who should not judge
>> people as guilty until proven innocent. Which
>> implies that if you're *not* an authority figure, it's
>> okay to judge someone as guilty until proven
>> innocent.
>
> The modern era Superman (I specify cause I
> think we're going back and forth on modern and
> Golden Age) isn't judging criminals and meting out
> punishment, for the most part.
No, this exchange is about the GA Superman.
> He applies a *minimal* level of violence
> in order to *subdue* criminals *caught in the
> act*.
...which is what GA Superman did, as well, and
what Ken has nonsensically compared to police
brutality.
jay
wrote:
>>> The difference is that most superheroes
>>> don't try to play judge and jury. You'd never
>>> see Spiderman beating someone up because
>>> he deserves it, unless it was intended to be a
>>> case of Spiderman stepping over the line and
>>> doing something wrong.
>>
>> You don't see Superman doing that, either
>> (except in the one incident you mentioned).
>> His use of violence to subdue criminals mirrors,
>> in every way, the same use of violence by all
>> of these other characters.
>
> You yourself said that Superman never hit anyone
> "who didn't deserve it".
...and conceded the point when you found an
incident where he did. If you have to have that
amendment made more explicit, scratch out
"never" and write "virtually never."
> You also said that police
> brutality is particularly reprehensible not because
> of its brutality, but because police are authority
> figures who should not judge people as guilty until
> proven innocent. Which implies that if you're *not*
> an authority figure, it's okay to judge someone as
> guilty until proven innocent.
We make judgments like that all the time. Did
O.J. Simpson kill his wife? Was there anything
to the Paula Jones case? You're, again, offering
a critique of all costumed crime fighters disquised
as a critique of Superman. The use of violence
by Batman, Spiderman, and Superman is against
criminals caught in the act. They don't stick
around after the fact and start beating such a
fellow just to hear them scream, and they
certainly don't shove plunger handles up his ass.
>>> Those characters are careful about how
>>> they use their power. They wouldn't beat
>>> people up because they think those people
>>> deserve being beaten up.
>>
>> Neither would Superman. You're talking about a
>> single incident where even you would have to
>> concede he was acting grossly out of character.
>
> My comment about people deserving it was a
> reference to your own remark, not to that story.
> And it *wasn't* out of character.
Can you cite anything else he ever did or said
that even remotely resembles such an act? Or,
alternately, that he would ever support such a
thing?
> Superman
> was acting out what the common man wished
> he could do, just like in every other Superman
> story. Because you disagree with Superman this
> time doesn't mean that he's 'out of character'. It
> means that sometimes the common man is wrong.
> And when the common man is a Superman, he's
> super-wrong.
Superman isn't a power fantasy of the common
man--he's a power fantasy of a particular kind
of man; the reformer. That's his characters.
Nowhere in that, however, is there to be found
any justification for hitting someone who
disagrees with you. The reformers of the period
(like Superman) were themselves frequently
subjected to tremendous amounts of violence,
with the accusations of anti-Americanism serving
as the justification for it. For Superman to adopt it
is for him to become the opposite of himself.
> And there are other examples. For instance,
> in Action #16, Superman shuts down a
> gambling ring, and even crushes a man's
> watch to threaten him so he'll stop
> gambling--i.e. he prevents people from
> performing purely consensual activities. The
> gamblers are of course depicted as criminals,
> and some of the gambling is rigged, but
> Superman doesn't shut them down because
> it's rigged--he shuts it down as a 1930's
> version of the War on Drugs--Gambling is
> Bad.
He makes some comments that can be
interpreted that way [*], but whatever his
motives, the "gambling" with which he was
dealing in that story was illegitimate--a rigged
game, run by criminals and protected by
corrupt cops (and illegal, besides). Some of
the gamblers, in fact, help him break it up
when they find out they're being cheated.
The illegitimacy of it, in fact, is the theme of
the story--in the end, he cleans out all the
gangsters by getting them to gamble on a
rigged game.
[*] The story itself is a propoganda story
against gambling, with Superman again taking
a reformers' position, but within the context
of the tale, the gambling is illegitimate. This
is exactly the picture the anti-gambling
folks wanted everyone to have of it. As
propoganda, though, it has that critical
failing--if the gambling were legal and real,
rather than rigged, the premise of the story
would have evaporated, and there could
be no sympathy for the fellow who tried to
dismantle it. The illegitimacy of it makes it
just another criminal enterprise bilking people
out of their money.
Sean Daugherty
> I think the "super brain" should be qualified: My all-time favorite World's
> Finest story was the one in which Superman and Batman compete to discover
> one anotehr's secret identities, and Superman can't handle the fact that he
> ISN'T the mental equal to Batman (and if you think about it, what would be
> the point of these team-ups if he were?)
>
> Superman can have a photographic memory and an unlimited capacity for
> memorization, but that doesn't necessarily make him super-smart.
Yes, but it makes it more difficult to explain why he isn't. I'm
biased, but I do prefer to have a Superman where, if you remove his
powers, he is still a least a good guy, with basic, human-learned
skills. As an investigative reporter, and with all the perks his
superpowers give him, it becomes more difficult to explain why he's
incapable of uncovering Batman's identity without basically falling
back on the suspicion that he's actually a pretty lousy reporter who
wouldn't have gotten as far as he did without using his powers. Which
clearly wasn't the intention, but is a practically inescapable
conclusion.
quimico
No, the GA Superman threw people out of high windows,
and I don't think police would be tolerated to that.
The Operative
> hte...@pacbell.net (The Operative) wrote:
> >
> > Johanna, how I've missed our talks!
>
> Thank you, and ditto!
That does it -- when I finish my site redesign, our team-up column
is on! >8^)
> > I can see, say, Nightwing beating up petty crooks. Muggers, bank
> > robbers, and all.
>
> Even people who just happened to be in the wrong place when Nightwing's
> mad and needs to take it out on someone.
>
> (That Chuck Dixon story REALLY annoyed me. Sorry. I digress.)
Riiiiiight.
> > As for Supes, my concern is with what I call an appropriate response.
> > If you have to bang a nail into a wall, would you use an aircraft
> > carrier? No, you use a hammer. Superman versus a mugger or a bank
> > robber is like pounding a nail with an aircraft carrier.
>
> Petty crooks only respect force. You show them a force that they'll
> never be able to outfight or outwit or escape, and that shows them the
> error of their ways.
Well, Superman isn't that. Metropolis is his town, true, and he stops
a lot of crime, but he doesn't do it all. In a way he can't (he has a
job 8 hours of most days, and sooner or later somebody will notice
that you can mug somebody easier at 2PM than 11PM), and in a way it's
ridiculous for him to. Putting your finger in the dike of crime is a
laughable attempt. _Why_ do people commit the crimes? The reasons
behind things, in superheroing and the legal system as a whole, are an
afterthought. Was that guy mugging people because he was broke? Does
he have a hungry kid at home? Was he downsized out of two jobs in a
row, and been out of work 11 months (the last one was me, but I didn't
resort to crime mostly because the wife keeps a close eye on me,
knowing it's never far from my thoughts >8^)? No, Superman can't fix
that, Batman can't fix that, those are problems for regular people,
they must sort that out for themselves.
It's below the metahumans.
Uh huh.
My entire ass.
Interfere or step aside, but the halfass approach, punching some poor
jackass in the face for trying to get some money is "for the regular
people." I'm amazed to find myself agreeing with Muhammad X -- nobody
in _my_ neighborhood has anything for Superman, and he has nothing for
us.
> Again, it's wish fulfillment. Most people do not face interstellar war
> as a daily fear; their fear is the mugger or the rapist or the loss of
> what they've worked so hard to get (which is why superhero fights that
> destroy the buildings around them are also missing the point). Superman
> is a big brother; "I'll take care of those bullies for you".
Buy a gun. Walk in packs. Is personal responsibility that far out of
fashion that even our fantasies can't reflect some of it?
I'm sorry, I'm a silver age fan -- I want Supes tossing planets, not
purse snatchers.
> > It's not what I consider an appropriate response.
>
> You're not supposed to identify with the crooks, you know. You're
> supposed to say "yay! The bad guy is stopped!" :)
You'd be amazed how many people say that to me.
As an only child, I grew up blamed for everything (even stuff I
_really_ didn't do), so relating to the accused is almost second
nature. Then again, I'm seeing the Empire as a good thing from Star
Wars, but people just say I'm getting conservative as I approach 30.
Regardless of what I'm supposed to do, I don't, and as much as I spend
on comics, I'm a part of the demographic too.
> > Superman engenders no hope in me. ...
> > In my eyes, Superman is about power and control
>
> How much of the earliest Superman have you read?
Smatterings. Little earlier than then 60s. He was really funny to me
-- I keep seeing George Reeves in those books, snickering at the
crooks shooting then _throwing_ guns at him.
Educate me, as I live today, and _today's_ Superman is an agent of the
status quo, one which I find abhorrent.
> I agree with you, the cooption of Superman into the Big Blue Policeman
> was the beginning of the character's downfall. The American Way was
> supposed to be about individualism and achievement, not enforcing
> sociopolitical doctrine.
_Was_. Welcome to the new world order.
> The earliest Superman broke into the governor's mansion because the
> wrong person was about to be executed.
... you know, I do remember that. Vaguely. Amazing how the co-option
blurs even the things I did like.
> > Superman is a symbol of everything that's wrong _to me_. The
> > ultimate occupation force, the eternal logjam towards change.
>
> That's a reaction more towards Superman-the-product than the core of the
> character (as I see it).
Well, adhering to a decades old and neglected core character is one
thing, but the sheer preponderance of evidence against him is
staggering. It's like the Uncle Sam graphic novel, except in this
case, your superman got beaten down and sent to pasture in Crisis.
This guy is not him at all.
> > Signing on for Supes means accepting a certain-sized yard to play in, no bigger.
>
> And forced playmates.
... and stupid stunts. Remember when he went to Mexico for the sole
purpose to introduce those three "Planet DC" Mexican heroes that
you've never seen since?
I wonder sometimes how many caped and masked jackasses _are_ running
around the DCU -- even smaller towns seem to have at least one or two
in the general area.
The Operative
> The Operative <hte...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >You misunderstand me, mon ami. I'm not saying Superman doesn't use
> >appropriate levels of force. I'm saying he himself _is_ an
> >inappropriate response to street crime. If he can hear crickets
> >copulating in Compton, really, is the best use of his time stopping a
> >purse snatcher? He wants to do it, sure, but only when he's got time.
> > He can do it, yeah, when he's not busy. I just don't think it's his
> >bag, baby, and I don't think it should be.
>
> I guess so, but it just somehow seems wrong of him to ignore petty
> crime as being beneath him. Why not pitch in and help with the small
> problems too? (not to the extent of Astro City's Samaritan, who
> almost could not ever take a moment away from superduping.)
Because he's halfass. Read Superman: Peace on Earth. Superman will
fight what he thinks he can beat. He's an agent of the status quo. I
don't have as much of a problem with that when he's spacebourne and
smacking around Kalibak. When he's chasing down a mugger, I pray for
Kryptonite showers, because that's just not freakin' fair. Batman,
for all his training and skill, is one bullet away from being gone --
that's at least fair, once you get past the man's obvious psychosis.
The Operative
> On 8/23/02 3:21 AM, in article
> 9218d6ef.02082...@posting.google.com, "The Operative"
> <hte...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Superman engenders no hope in me. I doubt he engenders hope in
> > Shaquille O'Neill, and he has a superman _tattoo_, sanctioned by the
> > gods of AOL Time Warner. In my eyes, Superman is about power and
> > control, [and]... people who are invested in
> > and like the status quo.[...] Superman is a symbol of everything that's
> > wrong _to me_. The
> > ultimate occupation force, the eternal logjam towards change.
>
> Superman is not about (or should not be about) power, control, the status
> quo, the establishment, or anything like that. Superman is about (or should
> be about) _right_and_wrong_ - supporting the status quo when it's right,
> opposing it when it's wrong; supporting "the establishment" when it's right,
> opposing it when it's wrong; doing what's right and fighting what's wrong no
> matter the personal cost. THAT'S what Superman is to me, and what being a
> HERO means.
That's really special. If you show me a book where that hero is being
published, I'll check it out.
It is not anything with a Superman logo (unless you count trying to
topple Luthor's presidency, which actually doesn't count since a more
subtle corrupt person will take the job anyway).
I find it hilarious how so many people leap to defend what Superman
_should_ be, while ignoring what he clearly _is_. I'm sure if your
Superman were being published, I'd be buying it. However, with
reality being what it is, both of us are left empty handed, n'est-ce
pas?
Johanna Draper Carlson
> That's really special. If you show me a book where that hero is being
> published, I'll check it out.
I agree, the real Superman isn't being published, and that's a shame.
But then, the real Legion, the real Batman (with the exception of LDK),
and the real Wonder Woman aren't being published either, imo, so it's
not like Superman's the only problem here. All of these characters as
currently done are too far away from their core concepts and appeal.
Strangely, I could argue that the real Spider-Man and Hulk ARE being
published -- maybe that's part of the reason behind Marvel's success.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> when I finish my site redesign, our team-up column is on! >8^)
Heh. :)
> Putting your finger in the dike of crime is a laughable attempt.
So why do superhero comics? Because people need revenge fantasies. Or
inspirational heroics. Or a mix of both.
> _Why_ do people commit the crimes?
I'd love to see Superman comics address this, but that would require
taking a stand. Easier to stop a mugger than deal with class warfare.
(Why I disliked PEACE ON EARTH. Let's do a huge project to show Superman
wimping out.)
> Buy a gun. Walk in packs. Is personal responsibility that far out of
> fashion that even our fantasies can't reflect some of it?
I find it astounding that you think buying a gun is a more responsible
approach to likely irrational fear than reading an escapist fantasy.
> I'm sorry, I'm a silver age fan -- I want Supes tossing planets, not
> purse snatchers.
If you were truly a Silver Age fan, you'd want Supes playing pranks on
Lois for trying to prove he was really Clark Kent. :)
> As an only child, I grew up blamed for everything (even stuff I
> _really_ didn't do), so relating to the accused is almost second
> nature.
Then traditional superhero comics are probably not for you, honestly.
> Educate me, as I live today, and _today's_ Superman is an agent of the
> status quo, one which I find abhorrent.
I agree. No more discussion needed. :)
(But today's Superman isn't the REAL one.)
jay
wrote:
>>>>> You'd never see Spiderman beating
>>>>> someone up because he deserves it...
>>>>
>>>> You don't see Superman doing that, either
>>>> (except in the one incident you mentioned).
>>>
>>> You yourself said that Superman never hit
>>> anyone "who didn't deserve it".
>>
>> ...and conceded the point when you found an
>> incident where he did. If you have to have that
>> amendment made more explicit, scratch out
>> "never" and write "virtually never."
>
> My point isn't that sometimes Superman hit
> someone who didn't deserve it, my point is that
> Superman *makes the decision about whether
> someone deserves it*. Spiderman and the
> modern Superman don't do that.
So Spiderman hits people *without* first
deciding he should?
>> Superman isn't a power fantasy of the common
>> man--he's a power fantasy of a particular kind
>> of man; the reformer. That's his characters.
>> Nowhere in that, however, is there to be found
>> any justification for hitting someone who
>> disagrees with you.
>
> I could say the same thing you said about the
> gambling story: in the context of the story,
> anti-American speech is associated with
> terrorism, just as in the context of the gambling
> story, gambling is associated with crime. It's
> really the terrorism/crime that Superman is
> fighting.
You, yourself, said he didn't know the athletes
were spies beforehand.
> And anyway, Superman fights a lot of generic
> crime where he's only a "reformer" in the sense
> that crime is a social ill.
There was always a recurring focus on rackets
and combines, organized crime and their cooption
of the machinery of official authority. This is a
reformer's focus on corruption.
>> This
>> is exactly the picture the anti-gambling
>> folks wanted everyone to have of it. As
>> propoganda, though, it has that critical
>> failing--if the gambling were legal and real,
>> rather than rigged, the premise of the story
>> would have evaporated, and there could
>> be no sympathy for the fellow who tried to
>> dismantle it. The illegitimacy of it makes it
>> just another criminal enterprise bilking people
>> out of their money.
>
> Superman crushed a guy's watch because
> he was gambling against the wishes of his
> wife, and threatened to crush his neck if he
> continued. That man's only connection to
> gambling was as a customer. He didn't try to
> bilk anyone out of anything.
He was being bilked out of the money his
family needed by a rigged game. That's one
of two moments in the story when it steps
outside of the boundaries I described earlier
(the othe being his conversation with the
mayor [?]).
jay
wrote:
He always caught them before they hit the ground.
Franklin Harris
> I agree, the real Superman isn't being published, and that's a shame.
> But then, the real Legion, the real Batman (with the exception of LDK),
> and the real Wonder Woman aren't being published either, imo, so it's
> not like Superman's the only problem here. All of these characters as
> currently done are too far away from their core concepts and appeal.
I agree that Wonder Woman has gotten a bit afield of her core concept (which
may be a good thing), and I don't read Superman, so I have no idea how far
he's strayed. But how has Batman drifted from his core concept. I don't see
it. Not at all.
--
Franklin Harris
Pulp Culture Online, www.pulpculture.net
"The future is unknowable but not unimaginable." -- Ludwig M. Lachmann
Brad Ferguson
<D0387D706270B3C8.D7886DA1...@lp.airnews.net>,
jay <jrid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Those characters are careful about how
> >>> they use their power. They wouldn't beat
> >>> people up because they think those people
> >>> deserve being beaten up.
> >>
> >> Neither would Superman. You're talking about a
> >> single incident where even you would have to
> >> concede he was acting grossly out of character.
> >
> > My comment about people deserving it was a
> > reference to your own remark, not to that story.
> > And it *wasn't* out of character.
>
> Can you cite anything else he ever did or said
> that even remotely resembles such an act? Or,
> alternately, that he would ever support such a
> thing?
In the 1942 novel "The Adventures of Superman," written by "Superman"
radio series writer George Lowther, Superman kills the head of a Nazi
spy ring with one punch for no reason other than that he loathes
traitors.
The Operative
> hte...@pacbell.net (The Operative) wrote:
>
> > Putting your finger in the dike of crime is a laughable attempt.
>
> So why do superhero comics? Because people need revenge fantasies. Or
> inspirational heroics. Or a mix of both.
Perhaps. I mean, as I said, You put darkseid against the legion, I'm
there. I was there for Ra's Al Ghul against the Legion (I'm juwt
waiting for Vandal Savage to show up and put a foot in their @$$).
That's superhero comics to me -- impossible people beating on equally
impossible people. Cool. Superman versus muggers? No thanks, I'll
be getting back to Black Panther, thanks.
> > _Why_ do people commit the crimes?
>
> I'd love to see Superman comics address this, but that would require
> taking a stand. Easier to stop a mugger than deal with class warfare.
>
> (Why I disliked PEACE ON EARTH. Let's do a huge project to show Superman
> wimping out.)
That's exactly what I said! A point we agree on wholeheartedly.
> > Buy a gun. Walk in packs. Is personal responsibility that far out of
> > fashion that even our fantasies can't reflect some of it?
>
> I find it astounding that you think buying a gun is a more responsible
> approach to likely irrational fear than reading an escapist fantasy.
Well, I'm not saying _I_ have a gun (I will admit to having a kevlar
vest), but I'm saying what the hell? A vote for chaos is its own
reward.
I think we live in interesting times, Johanna, and I believe anything
people do to feel safe _personally_ is okay. OTOH, that's wandering
into another discussion altogether.
> > I'm sorry, I'm a silver age fan -- I want Supes tossing planets, not
> > purse snatchers.
>
> If you were truly a Silver Age fan, you'd want Supes playing pranks on
> Lois for trying to prove he was really Clark Kent. :)
*Hannibal chuckles* I'm fine with that as well. If I had that kind
of power, believe me, 90% of my day would be spent messing with
people's minds for my own amusement. That's just plain funny.
> > As an only child, I grew up blamed for everything (even stuff I
> > _really_ didn't do), so relating to the accused is almost second
> > nature.
>
> Then traditional superhero comics are probably not for you, honestly.
Then do you say the Levitz/Giffen LSH is not "traditional," as that's
my favorite book from my childhood? In the words of Christopher
Priest, I'm not anti superhero, I'm anti _stupid_ superhero.
> > Educate me, as I live today, and _today's_ Superman is an agent of the
> > status quo, one which I find abhorrent.
>
> I agree. No more discussion needed. :)
Fair enough.
> (But today's Superman isn't the REAL one.)
I'll let you in on a secret, Johanna -- they were using the body of
the real superman as a cart to carry things in and out of Comicon.
He's gone, girl, you've got to let it go! The days of his pranks on
Lois and planet juggling are fond memories we'll always share ... but
nothing more.
*Hannibal stifles a sob and signs off*
jay
wrote:
>>> My point isn't that sometimes Superman hit
>>> someone who didn't deserve it, my point is that
>>> Superman *makes the decision about whether
>>> someone deserves it*. Spiderman and the
>>> modern Superman don't do that.
>>
>> So Spiderman hits people *without* first
>> deciding he should?
>
> "Hitting him because he deserves it"
...which isn't what's being argued here...
> includes
> things like hitting the bad guy to get revenge,
> hitting him to make him suffer a bit of what his
> victims suffer, etc. Hitting him for practical
> reasons like "to catch him" or "to keep him
> from killing someone" doesn't count.
>
> The GA Superman does that. Spiderman
> doesn't.
Superman rarely did it, either. And, as I
said, he never did it to anyone who didn't
deserve it.
>>> I could say the same thing you said about the
>>> gambling story: in the context of the story,
>>> anti-American speech is associated with
>>> terrorism, just as in the context of the gambling
>>> story, gambling is associated with crime. It's
>>> really the terrorism/crime that Superman is
>>> fighting.
>>
>> You, yourself, said he didn't know the athletes
>> were spies beforehand.
>
> He didn't know the gambling was crooked
> beforehand, either.
Yes, he did. His first night out, he ripped up a
roulette wheel to show the people there it was
rigged. He said he was going to before he ever
did it, which is impossible unless he knew
beforehand.
>>> And anyway, Superman fights a lot of generic
>>> crime where he's only a "reformer" in the sense
>>> that crime is a social ill.
>>
>> There was always a recurring focus on rackets
>> and combines, organized crime and their cooption
>> of the machinery of official authority. This is a
>> reformer's focus on corruption.
>
> Why can't spies be viewed as corruption? Spying
> of the type in the story involves people abusing the
> system (hiding behind the protections offered by
> a democracy when they really hope to destroy it).
Spies ARE an example of this sort of corruption.
No one has said otherwise.
> (Also, are Superman's battles against Luthor
> and the Ultra-Humanite also reformist?)
The Ultra-Humanite was presented as the
ultimate mobster--a guy who controlled an
octopus of interlocking organizations and
criminal enterprises. He also represents, like
Luthor, the corruption of science. Rather
than using it to help mankind (as the reformer
would believe he should), he uses it for evil
ends. One story, in Action #19 or 20
contrasted this to an idealistic scientist trying
to cure a disease Ultra had unleashed, and
there are indirect references to Nazism (Ultra
wishes to create a master race).
>> That's one
>> of two moments in the story when it steps
>> outside of the boundaries I described earlier
>> (the othe being his conversation with the
>> mayor [?]).
>
> So does that count as two stories when
> Superman is acting "out of character"?
No.
> Should I try for three?
Two comes first.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> how has Batman drifted from his core concept.
Short answer: Batman should not be psychotic.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Superman versus muggers? No thanks, I'll
> be getting back to Black Panther, thanks.
That doesn't seem to fit into your "impossible people beating on other
impossible people" set, though. Why is that ok for you?
> Then do you say the Levitz/Giffen LSH is not "traditional," as that's
> my favorite book from my childhood?
LSH is not traditional superhero; it's soap opera with superhero
characters.
> In the words of Christopher
> Priest, I'm not anti superhero, I'm anti _stupid_ superhero.
Except that you're defining "stupid" as equal to the basics of the
concept, which is inherently problematic.
> He's gone, girl, you've got to let it go!
Oh, I'm not harping on it--the corporate masters can do whatever they
want with all the characters they're getting wrong. I don't read them.
But if we're talking about the appeal of the character, I think the core
vision is important to recognize.
Servant of Maleldil
johanna-398DAD...@news.fu-berlin.de, "Johanna Draper Carlson"
<joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
> hte...@pacbell.net (The Operative) wrote:
>> _Why_ do people commit the crimes?
>
> I'd love to see Superman comics address this, but that would require
> taking a stand. Easier to stop a mugger than deal with class warfare.
There are a lot of factors contributing to people making a decision to turn
to crime, but the deciding factor is always individual responsibility. The
societal issues must be dealt with, but so must the hearts and wills of the
people who are faced with the decision.
Superman (as he should be) is a character whose example is intended to
inspire the latter.
--
Denes House - hous...@borg.com
"We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
- Oscar Wilde
The Operative
> On 8/26/02 8:21 PM, in article
> johanna-398DAD...@news.fu-berlin.de, "Johanna Draper Carlson"
> <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote:
>
> > hte...@pacbell.net (The Operative) wrote:
>
> >> _Why_ do people commit the crimes?
> >
> > I'd love to see Superman comics address this, but that would require
> > taking a stand. Easier to stop a mugger than deal with class warfare.
>
> There are a lot of factors contributing to people making a decision to turn
> to crime, but the deciding factor is always individual responsibility. The
> societal issues must be dealt with, but so must the hearts and wills of the
> people who are faced with the decision.
>
> Superman (as he should be) is a character whose example is intended to
> inspire the latter.
Okay, let's finish with this "should be" thing.
What we have is Superman: Agent of the Status Quo. Now, I'm 29, a
professional writer and web producer, make okay money (god help me, if
the wife doesn't spend it all), live in a house, and what have you. I
grew up with two parents, had a tolerable enough financial situation.
Still, I lived in "rough" neighborhoods and was inclined to do bad
things. I'm _still_ inclined to do bad things, and the fear of
getting caught is all that stops me. I don't _need_ to do it in order
to, say, eat.
I know people who do, who have been so broke that the choices were
crime or starvation, sometimes based on circumstances beyond their
control (and, yes, sometimes because they were dumbasses). I'm a huge
proponent of personal responsibility, but a part of that is personal
survival. "Whatever it takes" is normally the first thing out of my
mouth, let the chips fall where they may.
So if I'm broke and hungry, is Superman, past or present, gonna
"inspire" me to "tough it out?" Hell no. I'm gonna eat, and woe be
unto anybody who gets im my way. This has been the way of hominids
since prehistoric times, and for all our cell phones and usenet, we're
not so far from those humble origins.
That said, Superman _in his prime_ was a fair attempt at inspiration,
but (as we've hopefully proved) the Superman you pine for _no longer
exists_. What we have can't inspire much of anything because _he's an
anachronism_. Superman: Peace on Earth is, in my mind, the definitive
Superman book of the modern age: "I can't do it, I freakin' give up."
In the first half of the 20th century, before Watergate and JFK and
Enron and Desert Storm, maybe a Superman character could inspire
something. Now? Come on, man, let's live in the present tense. I've
worked with kids, from a high school tutoring program to a mentoring
workshop in an LA housing project -- these kids believe in nothing.
There's ones and twos, sure, but they've seen too much to buy "Truth,
Justice and the American Way" in the face of Ollie North, OJ, Ken Lay,
Rodney King, Ken Starr and Amadou Diallo.
Right. The "should-be" Superman (let's just call him Kal-L) is dead.
Moving on?
jay
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Yes, he doesn't need to learn things like
>>> mere mortals--he has a super-brain.
>>
>> This was always my least favorite of the
>> pre-Byrne Superman's powers, and the
>> only one I'm unqualifiably glad was
>> removed.
>
> The only one? So you were OK with
> super-breath?
Pre-Byrne, Superman was plagued by such a
grabbag of stupid powers that he could do
anything. He could shape-shift, become
invisible, phase through solid objects, move
planets, pass through a star without injury,
travel faster than light. He never had to
breath, never bled, never sweat, and could
make his heart cease beating at will. His
hair and fingernails never grew. He could
inhale an entire lake (without ever, of course,
telling where that lake went). He could
assemble the whole of human written
knowledge in one place, read it all in only
minutes, and from 10,000 miles away, and
could remember every word of it. To say this
was a character TERRIBLY in need of an
enema by the time he got to Byrne is to
make the understatement of a lifetime.
(Though this is so obvious as to be
self-evident, even the suggestion that
Superman is too powerful brings down the
wrath of the "fanboy"-types around here,
which, as much as anything I've ever seen,
underscores how utterly worthless is their
advice on how to write the character.)
Johanna Draper Carlson
> these kids believe in nothing.
That's very sad, and I don't believe the situation is improved by
insisting role models are old-fashioned.
> Right. The "should-be" Superman (let's just call him Kal-L) is dead.
So what's your point? I don't read Superman, you don't read Superman,
why are we talking?
(Actually, it doesn't matter whether he is or not, because the stories
are still easily available, thankfully.)
The Operative
> hte...@pacbell.net (The Operative) wrote:
>
> > these kids believe in nothing.
>
> That's very sad, and I don't believe the situation is improved by
> insisting role models are old-fashioned.
*Hannibal throws up his hands in disgust*
I never said that, Johanna, and that's not right for you to insinuate
that I did.
I said _Superman_ that's on the stands _now_ is an anachronism and
agent of the status quo. I said nothing about, say, Impulse (who is
one of my favorite characters, one I share with my pre-teen little
brother), who _grows_ and _learns_ and works very hard to do the right
thing. I'm not anti-role model, that's a really inappropriate
characterization.
> > Right. The "should-be" Superman (let's just call him Kal-L) is dead.
>
> So what's your point? I don't read Superman, you don't read Superman,
> why are we talking?
I read Superman. I don't _buy_ Superman. I have a nostalgic love for
the concept that, strangely, is very similar to the passion some of
the people defending him have. That nostalgic affection makes the
current incarnation so sickening.
Funny, but I actually like the psychopath Batman more, even though I
think he's a bit ridiculous half the time.
> (Actually, it doesn't matter whether he is or not, because the stories
> are still easily available, thankfully.)
Good point -- I have reread The Great Darkness three times since I
bought the TPB.
quimico
>(Though this is so obvious as to be
>self-evident, even the suggestion that
>Superman is too powerful brings down the
>wrath of the "fanboy"-types around here,
>which, as much as anything I've ever seen,
>underscores how utterly worthless is their
>advice on how to write the character.)
To a man who was born without legs,
advice on ballroom dancing is quite worthless, yes.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote
> >
> > insisting role models are old-fashioned.
>
> that I did.
I apologize for misunderstanding your message, but that's what I thought
you were saying. I'm glad to know that's not the case.
jay
wrote:
>>> The GA Superman does that. Spiderman
>>> doesn't.
>>
>> Superman rarely did it, either. And, as I
>> said, he never did it to anyone who didn't
>> deserve it.
>
> In order for him to do that (without refraining
> from such hitting at all), he has to decide who
> deserves it and who doesn't. Which is what
> I'm saying; Superman makes this kind of decision.
And, as I've said perhaps 10,000 times now, so
does every other costumed hero. If you would
stop and read your own words and think about
their implications, rather than being so hellbent
on playing "gotcha" with me, you'd see what
I'm saying. The implications of your words are
that guys like Spiderman and Batman hit people
who don't deserve it (you're implying they go to
bashing folks without any sort of judgment
process). I think I understand that you probably
don't mean it that way, but you insist on
repeatedly muddying the point.
> Besides, you already conceded at least
> one case of Superman hitting someone
> who didn't deserve it.
No, that was a case of hitting someone
who he didn't know deserved it.
>>>>> I could say the same thing you said about
>>>>> the gambling story: in the context of the
>>>>> story, anti-American speech is associated
>>>>> with terrorism, just as in the context of the
>>>>> gambling story, gambling is associated with
>>>>> crime. It's really the terrorism/crime that
>>>>> Superman is fighting.
>>>>
>>>> You, yourself, said he didn't know the
>>>> athletes were spies beforehand.
>>>
>>> He didn't know the gambling was crooked
>>> beforehand, either.
>>
>> Yes, he did. His first night out, he ripped
>> up a roulette wheel to show the people
>> there it was rigged.
>
> His decision to crack down on gambling
> comes after saving a suicidal man and
> talking to his editor. He doesn't yet know
> that the gambling is rigged; he just wants
> to stop gambling because Gambling is
> Bad.
That conversation is the other incident I
mentioned earlier about when it steps out
of the frame imposed by the story. Again,
there's no indication at all that he doesn't
know the gambling is rigged. There's no
moment of revelation--he simply goes into
an illegal casino, first thing, and shows
the people there that they're being cheated.
(Keep in mind that, in the story, gambling
is completely illegal).
> I suppose you can argue that he makes
> two decisions, one to crack down on
> gambling, and another to hit people in the
> process, and he makes the second
> decision later, but that's a rather strained
> reading.
>
> There's also no evidence that any of the
> other gambling he stops (like the numbers
> "racket") is rigged.
A racket is, by definition, rigged.
>>>>> And anyway, Superman fights a lot
>>>>> of generic crime where he's only a
>>>>> "reformer" in the sense that crime is
>>>>> a social ill.
>>>>
>>>> There was always a recurring focus
>>>> on rackets ... This is a reformer's focus
>>>> on corruption.
>>>
>>> Why can't spies be viewed as corruption?
>>
>> Spies ARE an example of this sort of
>> corruption.
>
> Then the story where Superman hits
> people for anti-American remarks, and
> they later turn out to be spies, *is* an
> example of Superman being a reformer,
> and therefore, even by your standards,
> Superman is not out of character there.
You've said perhaps half a dozen times
that he didn't know they were spies
beforehand. He can not invoked the
fact that they were spies as a defense
if he didn't know it ahead of time. Is it
true that he didn't know, or not?
>>>> That's one
>>>> of two moments in the story when it steps
>>>> outside of the boundaries I described earlier
>>>> (the othe being his conversation with the
>>>> mayor [?]).
>>>
>>> So does that count as two stories when
>>> Superman is acting "out of character"?
>>
>> No.
>
> Why not? It seems to fit your criteria. You
> think that Superman is acting out of character
> if he hurts someone who doesn't deserve it.
Correct.
> He crushed that guy's watch. The guy didn't
> deserve it--he was a victim, not a criminal,
> even according to the story.
His gambling was a criminal action. Superman's
anger at him, though, was that he was squandering
money his family needed, which is the number one
complaint by anti-gambling types about what legalized
gambling will lead to (that's all you heard in my state
for months when we adopted a lottery a few years
ago). As I said before, that was the other example
of when it steps out of the framework imposed by
the story. He isn't acting out of character, though.
The Operative
> hte...@pacbell.net (The Operative) wrote:
> > Johanna Draper Carlson <joh...@comicsworthreading.com> wrote
> > >
> > > That's very sad, and I don't believe the situation is improved by
> > > insisting role models are old-fashioned.
> >
> > I never said that, Johanna, and that's not right for you to insinuate
> > that I did.
>
> I apologize for misunderstanding your message, but that's what I thought
> you were saying. I'm glad to know that's not the case.
Okay, well, good to be on the same page again.