Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Here's a question:

What exactly is Superman's Super-Hypnotism? What are the limits of the power? On what occasions has he used it, and to do what?

I've always had the impression that Superman's Super-Hypnotism originates from his eyes and requires eye contact. and is a Vision based power, not unlike X-Ray and Heat Vision (and possibly related to them). So it is not truly a telepathic power, like say, Saturn Queen or Universo's hypnotic abilities.

Someone on this forum once offered the explanation that Superman's Ventriloquism was due to telepathic projection. I don't think this works; for one thing, if Superman's super brain was capable of telepathic feats, he'd use it for something more profound than just causing his voice to appear elsewhere. And the fact that he can use it to mimic accents and whistle into untrasound implies it is vocal in origin; how can a telepath project into ultrasound?

One possible rationale for why Superman seldom uses this power (apart from the obvious, that it creates solutions to problems different from actions we'd expect of Superman) is that Superman has such respect for human free will that he will not tamper with it even in extreme circumstances. This explains why Superman does not use Super-Hypnotism on Luthor to, for instance, let him out of his Kryptonite trap. It may also be plausible that Luthor, evil genius that he is, has invented contact lenses that block the use of Super-Hypnotism. Superman's respect for human free will may also account for why he does not use his Hypnotism to remove his enemies of their more antisocial urges, Doc Savage style.

(On a related note, some people have called Doc Savage's treatment brainwashing. In the interests of preserving Doc Savage's heroism, I would say it is precisely what Doc says it is: a surgery to remove the "crime gland" responsible for antisocial acts. This is an interesting 1930s notion: evil being a medical disorder related to a hormone, and a recurring one in a decade coming to terms with real human evil. One of my favorite variations on this is the idea that evil - from WWI to the Depression - was caused by a secret sub-race that has existed in secret from the dawn of time, identified by their hairier, cavemanlike bodies.)

Kal used his Super-hypnosis to make someone forget something, it was so effective that even their subconscious mind would also forget it.  He was even able to use that power on himself.  This power combined with his Super-Ventriloquism, telescopic Vision, & X-ray Vision; theoretically enabled him to brainwash just about anyone, almost antwhere.  Like his other powers the upper limits to this ability have never been shown.  No wonder he almost never used this power.

Sigh. That's very trash, in my opinion.
Then, I considered unfair that Superman could use his superpowers to alterate minds.

And, don't forget it, he could use this power on himself. Now he can do it again, as seen in "For tomorrow".

Some quotes on my theory on superhypnotism I had originally posted elsewhere:





Thoughts?

I don't think very highly of Patrick Flanagan.  He was one of the big promoters of pyramid power back in the day -- until some Ontario scientists performed controlled experiments conclusively proving pyramid power is bunk.  IMHO, he does not rate very high credibility in the scientific community so I'd be skeptical about any of the typically grandiose claims he makes unless corroborated by other more credible scientists.

As for the infrasonic angle, I think what's key here isn't so much sonic or visual as subliminal effects which his eyes could generate in eye-contact and same goes for his voice.  Subliminal ads in the old days used to be used to suggest to the audience to buy a Coke or something in movies with just a single frame or two fed into a standard movie reel.

Why didn't Superman use this power more often?

He didn't for the same reason he didn't use his super-speed in combination with his other powers in fights or any of his other powers more creatively and effectively.  The writers had troubles with such an overwhelmingly powerful character so to make things easier on them, writers of all incarnations have given Superman the default liability of being mind-bogglingly uncreative and uninspired.  That way, it just wouldn't occur to the guy to use his super-hypnosis or super-speed, etc. creatively.

BTW, an old internet friend of mine, Jassgard, once asked DC why Superman didn't combine his super-speed in fights.  Their response was super-speed tended to amplify his other super-powers so they took it away from him in fights by not letting the idea occur to him to do so.  This was pre-Mongul Jr. training, of course.

That same reasoning should apply to his not using super-hypnosis.

Oh, a further thought to help justify the uncreative post above.

The less one has the more creative one gets in using it.

The more resources, abilities, etc. one has, the less creative one needs to be with any and all of them.

Why be creative with a subtle power when a good super-punch tends to solve most problems?

This occurs in the real world.  People born and raised in North America tend to take the opportunities and resources there for granted so tend not to take full advantage of them.  New immigrants see clearly what the North Americans blithely take for granted and more likely use those resources to full advantage having had none of them in their native lands.

Ergo, Superman has little need to be creative with his vast powers and array of powers.  That's why the Flash is more skilled at super-speed since that's his one power and he has to make the most of it.  Superman's not as skilled with his speed simply because he doesn't need to be so.

This was addressed during O'Neil's Sandman Saga.  The less powerful Superman became, the greater use he made of his wits to meet his challenges.

OTOH, the weakened Byrned Superman tended to be pretty much brain-dead despite his lesser powers.  Writer talent also figures into the mix as well as character power-level in determining power use creativity.

I prefer my explanation for the absence of Super-Hypnotism - Superman's respect for human free will - because it preserves Superman's intelligence and dignity, and it extends logically from his motivation and personality.

And Superman IS clever with his superspeed and other powers; Superman's more interesting stories are defined by absolutely inspired use of powers, from the way he used "superfriction" to turn the Daily Planet globe into a gigantic magnet back in Alan Moore's Man of Tomorrow, to that Superboy story where Superman used his X-Ray Vision to cause plants to grow more quickly (Superboy #22, 1952). To say nothing of all the power tricks Superman used to defeat Luthor in "The Einstein Connection" by Elliot S! Maggin, present on this very website.

The fact that Byrne and his even worse imitators (Mike Carlin, Roger Stern, Dan "Electric Superman Was My Idea" Jurgens) made Superman basically a flying version of the Thing with not one iota of Ben Grimm's personality, really is just more proof how the lot of them just didn't get who Superman IS.

That said, the heat-vision/vocal control explanation to power Superman's Super-Hypnotism is fascinating, in a pseudoscientific "the core of Mars is made of ice" kind of way. I can see that sort of explanation being used in the Silver Age.

The example from the Sand Superman saga IS interesting...

With all due respect, Julian, the respect angle is inconsistent at best and incredible at worst.  The very first time he used super-hypnosis was on his beloved Lois.  Surely one of the closest people to him in both his lives would merit at least what a villain or stranger does in respect.  He's used it on the Qwardians, supposedly to strip their 'artificial veneer of evil' from them when they colonized a place on Earth-One.  How about how he used it on the entire city of Metropolis and on Spellbinder -- or tried to in the latter case -- in "The Master Mesmerizer of Metropolis"?  The fact that he uses the power at all means his supposed 'respect for free will' has some blinkers on it and may be next to nonexistent.

It's more consistent with his uncreative use of powers and tending to rely more on brute force most of the time to say he's not that inspired.

Yes, he does perform some creative stunts with just about all his powers including super-speed.  However, he tends to miss the combinations that are glaringly obvious.  Until the Mongul Jr. training, none of his incarnations would do the obvious move of super-fast pummelling his opponents millions of times in a second with his super-strength.  Even when his opponents have human-level reflexes but strength/powers rivalling his own, Superman doesn't do the stupefyingly obvious move to simply dodge their attacks at super-speed -- being effectively untouchable -- while he could rain all his other powers down on the other guy.  The same goes for most of his uber-power combinations.  The fact that DC has acknowledged this in a lettercol response, mentioned above, does support the contention that the Man of Steel is not that creative with his powers at least when it comes to combinations of them.

Well, in the old days, when was there ever a need for that? He could knock out most beings with a gentle tap. No need to even punch someone super hard even once. Only during Crisis did the weaker Earth-2 Superman actually go all out against someone for the 1st time, he didn't last very long, LOL.

Hmmm! Thanks for bringing the "Mesmerizer" story to my attention, CaptainKal. I don't own that story so I can't bring his actions in it into context; exactly what it is it he does in the course of that story? What's the plot, more or less?

Superman's codes are rather foggy when it comes to protecting his secret identity. For example, Superman doesn't tell lies, but he lies often to protect his secret identity. "I...suppose I just fainted when that Dinosaur came to life." And so on. It is interesting to note that Superman's use of Super-Hypnotism on Lois was related to protection of his secret identity. It may be interesting to hear how Superman would justify that sort of behavior, morally. Maybe Superman figures that it's "for their own good?" After all, knowing who Superman is potentially opens them for very dangerous reprisals, so it's not hard to follow his logic here. And all it takes is a brain-reading machine built by Luthor or Brainiac to obtain this information from their minds, even if they promise not to tell, so Super-Hypnotism mindwipes may be the best course of action.

This may account for why Superman hasn't used his Super-Hypnotism on Pete Ross, for example: Superman is unaware that Pete knows his secret identity.

As for the Superspeed/Strength combinations that Superman now uses together: I get a sense they did the right thing for the wrong reason. "The right thing" is have Superman use his powers with a degree of intelligence - everybody wants a clever Superman. The wrong reason is that this sort of fighting style and strategy was made popular by the bane of my existence, the slow and loathesome and inexplicably popular foreign cartoon, Dragonball Z (who knew they had Image Comics in Asia?)

It may be entirely possible that the writers were pointing out an error that simply isn't there. The laws of physics and common sense state that it just isn't possible to go from zero-to-20,000mph in a single step; Superman would require room to accelerate and build up speed, which makes use of Superspeed in a fistfight impractical because it requires him to use space to accelerate. But there is one use of Superspeed and Superstrength he uses quite well: a superspeed ram. Now this, he DOES do, on many occasions.

Though to be fair, Superman is after all, invulnerable; why expend energy dodging when it's just going to bounce off anyway? This is also something I've said of the Mighty Thor - why does Thor use his Hammer to parry bullets when his Asgardian bod's tough enough to make this attack ineffective against him? At least Wonder Woman bracelets, pre-Crisis, made sense in this regard: Wonder Woman wasn't bulletproof.

Superman uses a giant TV screen and simulcast on all TV stations to broadcast his own super-hypnotic commands to Metropolis for them to resist all other forms of hypnotism to make them immune to Spellbinder's hypnotism.  He subsequently attempts to beat Spellbinder at his own game by super-hypnotically commanding him to surrender.  This fails due to the special lenses 'Binder wears in his mask that weaken hypnotic effects.



Superman did become aware of Pete's knowledge when Pete's son Jon was kidnapped by an alien warfleet, so Pete didn't want to waste time with the fiction of pretending not to know who Clark really was.  Pete even turned into a bitter enemy trying to kill Superman for not saving Jon.  Yet, Superman never chose to mindwipe Pete in anyway, not via amnesium nor super-hypnosis, etc.



Fans have been speculating and demanding this portrayal for decades.  DC just finally listened to us about the logic of it all.



No such law of physics forbids achieving relativistic velocities in a single step, as you put it.  It's all a matter of energy resources, and Pre Crisis Superman had virtually unlimited amounts of that.  Even the energy he typically wielded to move worlds could easily reach so close to lightspeed that it's less than a trillionth of a percent less.  Even the Byrned version who had power on the order of 40 megaton nukes at his weakest should have the energy resources to easily exceed 10% lightspeed.

Do not confuse speed as a single element or a one-dimensional power.  Speed involves many aspects besides ultimate final velocity.

Solar sails can theoretically achieve near lightspeed yet no one in their right minds would try to win a race with one.  That's because the acceleration is so abyssmally slow for said sails.  Ergo, acceleration is also an aspect of super-speed which Superman does indeed have which is also at a superhuman level.  He clearly accelerates at superhuman rates instead of the mere 10 m/sec. peak human rate or else it would take him nearly a year to accelerate up to mere lightspeed -- when he's been clocked at achieving multilightspeeds for interstellar jaunts in a matter of seconds.

Reaction time is also an aspect of speed.  Ultimate final speed may be irrelevant if others get the jump on you in reaction time.  Superman even Post Crisis has been credited with nanosecond reaction times compared with normal human 0.1 - 0.2 second peak reaction times.  To put reaction time in perspective, in the time it takes us to react, Superman would experience the subjective equivalent of over three years.

So, yes, he should be able to easily evade any normal timeframe attacks -- if the thought ever crossed his mind.



True and not true, sir.  He's invulnerable to most normal attacks.  But powers and power-levels rivalling his own can and do affect him.  He can punch or pinch himself and feel it.  So can Supergirl or Krypto when it comes to harming him. (Think about it along the same lines as a real world diamond being able to scratch another diamond.) Maybe he might be allowed some leeway for letting the first attack through out of invulnerability-habit.  But it takes some pretty dense Kryptonian cranial matter to keep him from realizing he's under a harmful attack so he'd best do the super-dodge bit.  The best I was aware of Pre Crisis was when he used his cape to help shield himself from an unknown weapon so he wasn't taking any chances; he'd have been smarter just to dodge the weapon in the human-timeframe foe's hands in the first place.

On a related note, the GA Superman once used 'telepathic will control' to command an extradimensional alien to do his bidding.

IMHO, telepathic will control was the precursor to the later super-hypnosis.

Certainly, Superman had no 'free will' restrictions about imposing his own will upon another with this power.  And it had nothing to do with maintaining his secret identity or any of the other classic fuzzy areas of his morality.  It was exactly in the same spirit as his actions upon Spellbinder noted above.  He had both the power and the will to use it with no moral compunctions even hinted at restricting him from using it.

On a third related incident, when Mxyzptlk gender-reversed the Earth so Superman was facing the male Wonder Warrior (instead of Wonder Woman), and he was depowered with a kryptonite gas helmet, he used the sunlight glinting off the helmet to assist him in hypnotizing Wonder Warrior.

Again, no moral compunctions were even hinted at in this hypnosis incident.  Superman just did what he thought was needed under the circumstances.  Free will never even entered his mind as a consideration.

I think this is nonsense. "Respect for human free will"? Bollocks. If he has respect for Luthor's free will, why does he try to stop Luthor from doing what he wants? Huh?

And furthermore, would Superman allow himself to be killed by Luthor (if super-hypnotism could save him) out of "respect" for Luthor's "free will"?

Huh?

You're barking up the wrong tree.



Julian, I really think you've bought too much into the hand-wringing, submissive, doormat Superman of the modern era. This is not the Superman I grew up with. I have huge love and respect for the Allied soldiers who defeated the Axis in World War Two... You couldn't find people who have more respect for human free will, or who have more intelligence and dignity -- yet they shot, stabbed, and blew up Germans and Japanese with all manner of weapons. You are confusing dignity and compassion with lack of resolve.



I think you're onto something here... As much as I admire Superman, I think one of his fundamental flaws is "lack of imagination" when confronted with problems his strength can't solve. This is not always the case, true, but it happens often enough to mention it. And it's not lack of imagination per se, but what you are describing: a failure to employ his widest range of powers to their fullest.

You're confusing Free Will with "Freedom to whatever I choose"..  

Superman respects an individual's right to freely make decisions: that does not mean he can't act to stop the consequences of wrong decisions.  Not brainwashing Lex Luthor into becoming a law-abiding citizen doesn't mean Superman can't stop Luthor's evil schemes.  It just means that rehabilitating Luthor needs to be done the traditional way.

And personally, I just have trouble buying the concept of "Super-Hypnosis" as a super-power, especially the way it was used in the Silver Age, as essentially being another one of Superman's Vision Powers.  Especially since the idea of Hypnosis being some sort of "eye beam attack" has since been debunked, as everyone now knows it's really just the Power of Suggestion.

Now, I could plausibly buy "Super-Hypnosis" as being based on sub-vocal modulations using his super-voice or something...

Just wanted to add that it's ironic we're bringing up the topic of Super-Hypnosis while over at DC Comics and it's readers, there's all that hoopla about the consequences of the JLA using mind-wipe techniques on it's enemies...

I thought about that before I posted, lonewolf23k, but I decided to post anyway.

I stand by what I said. It wasn't to do with brainwashing Luthor to permanently change him, but to temporarily change Luthor's intention, as it were, with a power like super-hypnotism (if that's even possible).

I'm deliberately combining free will and freedom to choose for the purpose of my argument because effectively I can't see the practical difference between Superman acting to stymie everything bad Luthor wants to do, and Superman hypnotising him to prevent him doing it. The only emotional difference for Lex between the two is in one scenario Lex is frustrated.

It isn't "free will" to let him desire anything he wants, then stop him getting it.

If I apply the same argument to God, and look at the "free will" He has given Man, it is quite a different situation -- and, I think, is the real free will you are talking about. He may not want us to act in certain ways, but if we decide to do so, He won't stop us overtly... And He certainly won't "hypnotise" us.

If a dog wants to run around, yet is tied up its whole life, I have a real problem with the idea the dog had "free will" during its lifetime. It doesn't wash for me. I wish I had more time to go into it, but I have to go. I might come back to it when I have more time. You won't agree with me, but at least I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

As to the mechanics of super-hypnotism, lonewolf23k, you mention sub-vocal modulations using his super-voice! That may be so. In older stories I have, on several occasions, I do recall Superman using a swinging pendulum device or similar, to put his victims in a trance. Maybe that's to distract them while he uses his voice... Isn't a hypnotist's main power in his voice, his power of suggestion...? You may be onto something.

I meant to post this for you yesterday, Julian, when I saw your questions. Nightwing has a great breakdown of this story (http://nightwing.supermanfan.net/oddities/mesmerizer1.htm) on his website.

I have a problem with the idea of Superman using hypnotism, for one simple reason, and it is this.

During the Silver and Bronze Ages in particular, Superman often went to great, sometimes absurd, lengths to hide his secret identity, or to trick people who somehow found out that he was Clark Kent, into changing their minds.

If all he had to do was to hypnotise somebody who discovered his identity, then why bother going to all the trouble to convince them otherwise by alternate means?

Hypnotism would an all too easy way out for Superman in these circumstances, and would make a lot of plot ideas redundant.

I hear you, Lee, and you're absolutely right.

It was Siegel who introduced the power in a story where a car Lois and Clark were in was about to crash on a deserted road.  Siegel invented the power to allow Clark to use his powers in front of Lois to save her without giving away his secret identity.  It seems Siegel wrote himself into a corner and cheated to get out.

If a later writer were faced with that same situation, they would probably have used his heat vision or super-breath or some other remote control approach, or even super-speed to solve the dual identity dilemna.  It must be noted that in the first story where Lois suspects Clark Kent is Superman ("Man and Superman", IIRC), Superman uses vast super-speed to switch in and out of Clark's clothes in the instants when Lois isn't looking directly at him.  Even so, it was plainly a challenge for him and he barely made it under the circumstances.

And you're confusing resolve with authoritarianism.

The ability to get things done is not heroic - at least in and of itself. Achieving results is irrelevant to what right and wrong are, and Superman only concerns himself with right and wrong.

How does Superman having a moral compass that he refuses to deviate from make him a "hand wringing, submissive doormat?" Superman's refusal to compromise his ethics to achieve results is a strength, and that's the Superman *I* grew up with. You're confusing results achieved with the means by which they are achieved. Superman brainwashing people is WRONG - even if done for the right reason, just like killing people is wrong even if done for the right reason.

This post does indeed strike a nerve. Firstly, because I'm not a fan of Modern Superman in the least, and your characterization of me as someone touched by it is frankly, astonishing to anyone that really knows me - or at least, has been following my statements on this board.

Also, the grotesque, jingoistic comparison of a fictional comic book superhero to real life historical events is not only innaccurate, but in poor taste as well. Uh...what AGAIN does WWII have to do with Super-Hypnotism? Bringing up brave veterans or little blind orphans or teddy bears doesn't prove your point, but it does manipulate emotions.

War is filled with moral compromises by its very nature. Viewing it as a necessary evil in some situations, as a last possible recourse, is the most acceptable term we can achieve and stay sane as a society. It is an ugly, grim reality that whether you hold an "All good little Vikings go to Vallhalla" mentality reveling the glory in inflicting violence, or one that is horrified at the idea of dying horribly for no good reason at all - here's the thing: it doesn't belong in escapist superhero comics. Just because Allied soldiers shot, stabbed and blew up people doesn't mean Superman ought to or that it would be okay or in character for him to do so. Nonetheless, in a military conflict such actions are tragically necessary. For this reason, science fiction adventure characters stay out of real life problems like wars or politics and I suggest we do so too if we're going to talk about Superman.



You're making it an either/or proposition. EITHER he uses his Super-Hypnotism on Luthor OR he dies. Someone as resourceful and clever as Superman would refuse to make that choice. He can create a third option. As seen in "SOS From Space," Superman refuses to accept the situation as given when aliens threaten the Earth unless he refuses to hand over the last two specimens of an endangered race. "I don't have to choose between saving that animal and saving Earth - I can do BOTH!"

Would Superman commit murder if it was his only choice to save lives (his own or those of others)? No. No, he would not. The central tenet of Superman's morality is that every human life has value and he would not compromise this to achieve results. Superman would refuse to accept the binary duality - kill or be killed. He would think of some other way that he can save lives and not compromise his beliefs.



This is really a specious, specious comparison. A dog has no free will to begin with - it can't make a moral choice. A lion can't "choose" to not hunt and kill a gazele, because it is an animal that acts by its instincts. It wouldn't be wrong to tie up a dangerous dog.

In human beings, imprisonment is a consequence of free will, not its denial. Luthor is placed in prison because out of his own free will he - fully aware of his actions - made a moral choice to do wrong.

Society does not have the right to chop off the hands of a pickpocket because he chose to use his hands to steal. Superman does not have the right to remove the right of choice of a person if they do choose an evil course of action.



Very well and succinctly put, lonewolf23k! I can add little to your sharp, common sense arguments.

CaptainKal, your Superman scholarship, is, as always, tack-on and correct and flawless. My objection to the superspeed/strength combination however, stems from the fact that I cannot emotionally accept that Superman, characterized as cunning and clever, who is always creating inventive uses for his superpowers, is "uncreative." I yield and say you are correct at least according to the canon, but maintain this reservation as to his characterization. We ought to agree to disagree.

(For that same reason, I cannot at an emotional level accept the Vision had ever really been the robot Human Torch either, despite the fact they have been established as such over and over. The Torch had human emotions, and was human to the point he could give a blood transfusion to a woman, whereas the central concept of the Vision is that he is a "different" outsider that doesn't understand humanity. Steve Englehart, with brilliant characterization as always, got a lot of mileage out of this Roy Thomas concept by having the Vision acquire a sense of pride and history in himself, and a sense that if the robot Torch could achieve humanity, he has a goal to work towards. So in that sense, the idea had an overall effect that made the character stronger. But I just don't buy it.)

May I return the compliment that I find your approach refreshingly well-thought out, and very pleasant even in the face of disagreement.  Your character is indeed of high calibre going by your posts on this forum.  I truly enjoy our exchanges, Julian.  You're an asset to this forum and have brought a much-needed revival of posting activity here.

I agree that I want a Superman that's more creative with his powers, and we got a taste of that with Loeb/Kelly back in the day.  It's just a sad fact that most writers and/or editors don't give us that.  It would make much more sense to me, too, and would make Superman's character that much more consistent as well.

Back on-topic:

Given the incidents when Superman has used hypnosis or similar means in the past (documented earlier on this thread in my posts: Spellbinder, Mxyzptlk, and extra-dimensional alien) -- and they didn't all involve safeguarding his secret identity -- we can reasonably deduce that he has no free will problems with using super-hypnosis from a character or values perspective.

That leaves the other option that his lack of inspiration or creativity just doesn't allow him to consider the option in most cases.  Perhaps, when most problems are solved with his backbone powers like super-strength, super-speed, and flight, a subtle approach with super-hypnosis just doesn't occur to him.

A similar thing happened to the Pre Crisis criminal Ultraman.  Superman tricked Ultraman into landing on a huge kryptonite asteroid.  Kryptonite, in this first Earth-Three storyline, gave Ultraman new super-powers.  That huge chunk gave him so many new powers that his body was paralyzed into inactivity.  Ultraman couldn't focus to bring to bear a single power to beat Superman with that overwhelming array.

I suspect something similar is going on with Superman even if we discount free will and lack of creativity.  He simply has so much to work with that he tends not to be that effective with the minor powers -- just like UM was paralyzed by his overabundance of powers.

(I suspect that was a theme point the writers were trying to make about Superman's power usage via the example of Ultraman.)

Jingoistic is always a phrase that can be turned to lend credence to the argument at hand, while in this case, I have no opinion, plenty of declarative statements about "who are acceptable and talented writers" have been ventured without any more objective reasoning than "emotional feeling"...and I even agree with some of your reasons.



Not particularly, more and more, moral code is merely being identified as a product of the species that defines it, in other words, we are more "moral" because we we are the most human species on the planet (that's a truism, not an argument)...tell that to a lion that kills its competitor's cub's so it can breed with the female, all sorts of species have a morality and a free will that are as particular to them as a species as our own is to us...no judgement or separation as humans as "special" seems to be warrented.

Super heroes do carry on a fictional fight for what some members of our species value...in fact, their mythos is very SIMILAR to "all warriors go to Valhalla"...