Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Hello there! Just a few thoughts on Superman....

I´m 43, and Superman was my greatest hero when I was a kid...I still remember vividly how I dreamed of growing up and being like him, at least in terms of character...so in that way the man of steel helped me become a better man...gave me a strong sense of right and wrong, and made me see I should never do harm to others, but instead protect the poor and weak...(I should explain I´m a quite big and strong guy)...

However, when I look back at these stories, with more than 3 decades in contact with reality...well, I´m saddened at the fact I think the Superman ideal has been lost to a great extent, both in comics and in America....while the storyline has been rewritten too many times, and thus breaking the mythlike characteristic of stability and steadiness that only Superman had, most stories are just meaningless, without showing Superman in a deeper sense, being an incarnation of the values I mentioned before...you seldom see him battling inner battles anymore, just throwing punches all around....in general, I think the Superman stories of today are more shallow, and do not explore the immense potential of his godlike nobility and courage and goodness...all he does nowadays is battle fantasy monsters....no social content, no social criticism, nothing connected to reality....just one more fantasy character.

As for America, it´s even worse...we do not understand we are fast changing from defenders of the oppressed into oppressors, misled by a bunch of oil tycoons for whom liberty and democracy are mere words. If the Superman of my childhood were alive today, he would probably be going through a conscience crisis....his beloved country waging "pre-emptive wars".....a term well-liked by Hitler and his gang of thugs.

Terrorists killed 5,000 americans....in return, we bombed two countries and have killed more than 130,000 people so far....and in Superman´s world, not a word about it....where is my beloved America of old?

I sympathize/agree with your sentiments on current events, but don't recall seeing many Superman stories that commented on the Vietnam War in the comics of 30+ years ago (besides a general "war is bad/wrong" sentiment, of course)...though could be wrong, not having been alive during the Vietnam war (was born the day it ended!)...

Recall that a Superman story published at the time of the WTC attacks in 2001 got in the news---for depicting Lex Luthor's corporate headquarters (a pair of twin towers) as smoldering ruins following the "Our Worlds at War" alien attack (another case of bad comic timing)...

No idea if the current DCU United States is at war in Iraq, though (esp. with Lex Luthor as president until recently already causing a divergence from real-world events); recall some JLA story they did with Superman in some sort of mentally-induced-by-J'onn J'onzz(?) dream state where he imagines dealing with an Iraq-like war launched by Luthor. Recall it mainly since it got mentioned on MSNBC's "Scarborough" show (where it was ripped apart, for purportedly expressing anti-war sentiments)...

I also agree with Leonardo's pessimistic view of the present, though I think he's being rather romantic about the past. Superman has pretty much always avoided dealing with any large-scale real-world problems. The reasons are understandable: If Supey doesn't solve the problem, then you have to explain why not, which can end up being very contrived. If he does, then it can be a slap in the face to people who have to deal with the problem in reality. "Gee, in this comic Superman put a stop to the war by capturing both leaders and making them duke it out. I don't have the power to do that, so I guess I shouldn't bother." This also gets you into Watchmen-type situations where the comic book universe becomes less and less like our own -- which is realistically what would happen, but is frowned upon as it's likely to be confusing to the casual reader. Perhaps the only good solution would be to add equal and opposite forces on the other side so that the status quo is maintained, but in this case that wouldn't be very satisfying either -- we expect Superman to win.

Well I have a very different view of current events, which should answer your question of why Superman comics do not currently take -- and have rarely in the past taken -- a political stand of any sort.  Whenever you choose sides, you lose half your audience.

A lot of Hollywood types are learning this lesson right now: while they're entitled to their opinions, as soon as they express them they run the risk of alienating about half the country.  Whether you're a liberal George Clooney or a conservative Dennis Miller, once you open your mouth on the issues the public will never see you the same way again.  Some may make a hero of you, others will find you an obnoxious creep.  But either way, you've just cut your existing and potential fan base roughly in half.  Or maybe more, because for every one of us on the right or left, there's probably 5 other people in the middle who are annoyed by political pronouncements on *either* side of an issue.

Whatever Superman may have come to represent to us over the years (and I think we can agree it's a lot of good things) at the end of the day he is a commercial property, and DC has no interest in undermining his popularity by turning him into a political activist.  To me, that's as it should be.

Basically Superman simply believes in America's potential for greatness and the principles of freedom and equality it was based on.  So do you and so do I.  But in the real world, people can have very serious and profound disagreements about how best to fulfill that potential and honor those principles.  Face it, nobody voted against American ideals in November, but we were split roughly in half over how to interpret and implement those ideals.

A Superman writer or artist may be firmly convinced he knows how this country ought to be run, and bully for him.  But he has no business putting his views in Superman's mouth...Superman is too important to be reduced to a mouthpiece for some second-rate Jane Fonda with an ink brush.  Trying to reduce complex, real-world issues down to simple comic book terms of right and wrong is a bad idea, and frankly we've got entirely too much of that kind of "discourse" going on in this country as it is.

Sorry, I seem to have gotten myself logged out before typing the last post.  For the record, the remarks above, attributed to "Guest," are mine.

In general, I have no problem with popular entertainment that tries to make a political point. I liked most of the M*A*S*H TV series. But I agree with you that it would be wrong to use Superman that way. Maybe Jerry Siegel had a right to do that, but Superman doesn't belong to any one person, not anymore.

On the other hand, I'd much rather see Supey used to make political points than to sell Hostess Twinkies. :)

I'd rather characters like Superman stayed politically neutral, as well (if I want political comics, I'll read "Doonesbury" or "This Modern World"). Though there seems to be more leeway allowed for superheroes that're less iconic than Superman to express such viewpoints (see: Green Arrow)...

I think Green Arrow's a special case because he wasn't carrying his own book at the time he became a flaming liberal.

Basically I think Denny O'Neil put Ollie on the left to create some friction with Hal Jordan (representing the right) in those old issues of GL/GA.  (Personally, I don't think there was a lot of history to back up the notion that Hal was conservative, but seeing as how the GL Corps were intergalatactic "cops," I see what Denny was going for).  And since Denny was writing JLA around the same time, that characterization carried over to the team book to create more friction between Ollie and the other "cop" hero, Hawkman.  Readers seemed to like it, because it stuck even after Denny left.

The point being, had Ollie had a book of his own it would have been a lot riskier to politicize him.  But as half a yin-and-yang duo, or as the sole voice of dissent in a room full of "establishment" do-gooders, it worked.

Still and all, 30 years down the road those comics seem horribly dated, proof perhaps that "taking on the issues of the day" only guarantees you'll bore the readers of tomorrow.  The straight adventure tales of the Golden Age tend to hold up much better than the "relevant" stories of the 70s.

Anyway my point with Superman is that whatever side he takes, somebody will be disappointed.  As soon as he turns left or right, a lot of readers will go, "Crap...and I thought he believed in the things I did."  If he's managed to appeal to people on both sides of the aisle for 60 years, why blow it now?

Well, first of all, thanks to all who replied. Your views have been very interesting, and gave me "food for thought"...I´ll be considering your points, they´re all very interesting.

Yes, on hindsight, I´ll admit maybe I am a little too romantic...but you see, I think Superman has on some moments attained such a...shining height as a rolemodel for what man should be, that yes, it is hard to see some other moments when the caracter is in a less-than-godlike attitude.

I don´t mean Supes´stories should be only about perfection, there were some very nice and even funny ones, which were great for leisure.

But, I am referring to when he is reduced to a sort of "big, strong and dumb" guy, just one more of them super super super types...for me at least, he has distinguished himself for his principles, his ethics, his intelligence, not only his ultrapowerful attributes.

In short, as one of you posters put it, he is just a commercial product, yes...and I am romanticizing things...but, i gotta say this - for me, the Superman I knew in my childhood was more than just a superhero - he was an ideal to look up to, an icon, of what we should all try to be.

His vow of never taking a human life (yes, I know of the micro-universe story in which he killed the three kryptonian criminals, but I place that story alongside with the irrelevant ones, I think it was awful, not Superman at all) or any other kind of life, was sublime, if not as an attainable practice, but as a crystal-clear ideal we should all be deeply aware of - the sanctity of all life.

So in THAT way, I think he should be kept in that spirit, not give in to trends and modisms....can you imagine, if in 20 or 30 years ahead, due to changing values, we have a story in which he is portrayed as being gay, or a serial killer, or what-have-you? (BEFORE the criticism storm....I think there is nothing wrong with gays, or being gay, don´t mean to criticize them....but sorry, this is personal, it just ISN´T MY THING - and I certainly could never project it into Superman.)

The Superman I knew was a hell of a fighter, a no-quitter, courageous, brave, chivalrious to women (esp. to Lois), the ideal balance of man-type values combined with a sensitive and generous soul.

He defended the weak, the needy, he cared for the well-being of everyone, and he fought for life. He was selfless, always placing the good of others before his own. He was a fighter, but forever against fighting, and certainly all-out against war and hate.

He was Superman.

Well, perhaps I should just adopt the nik "Romantic"... :))

Hey, just a minute!  Some of my best friends are serial killers!  (And the rest are "what-have-you's"...)

I guess maybe we got away from your original point, which seems to have been that Superman has been reduced to a mindless pugilist like every other comic book character out there.  On that we are in total agreement.

For all the talk and posturing about the new "maturity" and "sophistication" of modern comics, they are in the end more one-dimensional and mindless than ever.  There was a time when Superman comics were, yes, littered with all sorts of silly concepts and characters like flying dogs and bottle cities, but underneath it all were some deep and fascinating subtexts that scholars (comics and otherwise) are still analyzing to this day.  In contrast, the post-86 version is just another garden-variety, run of the mill superhero in the grand Marvel tradition, a guy who answers every problem with his fists (since he has no brain), who lacks moral direction or a sense of self and who more often than not ends up on the losing end of a battle.

Bad enough that Byrne and his successors remade Superman as just another guy in longjohns and a cape, but they didn't even make him a particularly interesting one!  

The next time DC wonders why Superman is such a poor seller, they might do well do think these things over.  Superman used to have an ethics, a backstory and a moral character that made him one of a kind.  Take that away and there's not much left; other characters have "cooler" MO's, sexier attitudes, better costumes (I know, heresy! But it's true) and are usually more relevant to modern sensibilities.  Superman was supposed to be bigger than trends, bigger than "the latest thing."  He was supposed to be eternal.  Maybe that made him seem staid and boring to some fanboys, but it also helped him weather 6 decades of cultural change while other characters came and went.

Thanks, Nightwing, you hit it on the spot, said it better than I could! Who knows, if these posts are read by some of the DC editors, we might get our hero back into his true shape! :)

Speaking as someone who *is* gay, I can't imagine seeing Supes being shown as coming on to Jimmy or anything myself... :-)

Still, do agree that Supes does better when he's not succumbing to too many lame trends (like that mullet hairdo in the 90's), though his supporting cast has changed with the times---see Lois in 1955 vs. Lois in 1975, for instance, or Clark using the Internet in recent comics vs. a typewriter, or the addition of characters like Maggie Sawyer (I figure the supporting characters were Byrne's one vaguely redeeming contribution ;-) ).

I don't agree that Superman must be kept apolitical.  In the Siegel & Shuster days, Superman stopped wars; arrested power hungry dictators and crooked politicians; and stopped weapons munitioners - not only that, but he was clear about why he did it.  I think all of those things still apply today.  Regardless of right or left postion on the political spectrum, how could anyone with Superman's powers and strong moral compass sit back and do nothing while thousands are killed for short-term political and monetary gain?  Superman stands for freedom - even in the U.S.

Having Superman be apolitical would lead to a world where insane things like,  say, Lex Luthor becoming president while Superman sits back and does nothing about it, actually take place.

And we all know he'd never allow that.

Thanks Johnny Nevada, Starchild, for your contributions....

Nevada, glad you understood me right, Superman probably would have defended everybody´s options, though he himself has always been a paradigm of "straightness"...lol. And yes, Lois and the rest of the cast having been updated was a very good contribution, of course, it wouldn´t do to have a woman of the XXI century depicted the same way as in the 50´s. Good point.

Starchild, your opinion is very interesting, and yes, that´s one of the things I loved about Super, he did bring down tyrants and he did fight for liberty, sometimes even against the very US government! Reminds me of an interesting fictional story in the 80´s or 90´s, in which Metropolis is blasted by an Intergang nuke, and afterward he goes against all governments (including US) in order to rid the world of nukes...there´s political standing for you!

Of course, there´s a very thin line between "policing the world" against oppression, and becoming an oppressor yourself....there´s a famous Brit poem line, "Battle not with monsters, lest ye yourself become one"...hard to keep up the good fight, no doubt.

Anyway, thanks to everybody, it´s so nice to see Superman´s ideals have reached so many of us...Superman for president, now THAT´S what we needed.:)

Seigel and Shuster's comics were refreshing in their own way, but they were also so simplistic and broad that they'd never work today.  War is bad, corruption is bad, building skyscrapers with substandard materials is bad, yes yes we get it already.  For me, these situations were just a series of "straw men" set up for Superman to knock down.  In the end it was about as risky as saying, "I'm in favor of freedom and mom's apple pie and anyone who doesn't like that can lump it!"   :roll:

I take all these simplistic morality plays as part and parcel of a character who fooled his closest friends with a pair of glasses.  Jerry and Joe's creation was not made to stand up to the rigors of modern storytelling.  

The big problem today is that Superman has become incredibly powerful compared to his original incarnation.  In the old days, he was just a very strong guy.  Now he's practically a god.  So "getting involved" means, potentially, going up against whole governments...and winning.  Dismantling arsenals, defeating armies, bossing around legislatures.  Once you open that "why doesn't he get involved" can of worms, you can't really stop.  If it's okay for him to use some of his powers to enforce his ideals, why not all of them?  So soon you have a dictator running the whole world from his throne at the Fortress.

I think Superman sees his role as that of an example to others, not the final arbiter of what is right and wrong.  Because you know what?  If you convince the peoples of the world that they can get along and achieve something on their own, they just might do it.  But if you force your will on them -- however benign you might think your motives -- they will only unite in one cause...your destruction and removal from power.  And once they've killed you off, they'll go right back to fighting.

Dad blast it, I did it again!  "Guest" above is me!

Well, "what if Supes was gay" might make for an entertaining Elseworlds, I suppose (if they can make all those pointless Elseworlds ones with him in the Civil War, in Kamadi's time, etc. where Batman somehow contrivedly shows up in each and everyone... ;-) ).

>>And yes, Lois and the rest of the cast having been updated was a very good contribution, of course, it wouldn´t do to have a woman of the XXI century depicted the same way as in the 50´s. Good point.
<<

Yep.

>>Anyway, thanks to everybody, it´s so nice to see Superman´s ideals have reached so many of us...Superman for president, now THAT´S what we needed.:)

Comments about neutrality aside, I *WISHED*. :-)