Random thoughts

[Anonymous]

Thanks for this great site.  The source material really makes your point, which is-- I think-- that there was something magic about comics that's been lost through endless retconning.

I'm in my 40s.  As a kid, I was never deeply into Superman.  I guess Superman was the standard against which all other comic characters were mesaured, and that made them at the time more interesting than the standard.  The standard was immutable and unchangable.  In my more nostalgic years, I've since come to realize that it is this very iconic stature that reduces other comic heroes to clutter.  If you have to remember one, then remember the first, the best and most noble of them.

I always had a thing for Supergirl, who was written so good and pure and sweet, but who was invulnerable and who could kick some serious tail.  She could be bashed by some evil space robot and emerge without a scrape or bruise, but flowers would make her cry.  Fantastic concept that was never fully realized.

Most of my Superman memories involve "gimmick" stories in which the cover showed Superman's identity was exposed and the main internal story was a soap opera about how he ignobly deceived his way out of the predicament.  I suppose the "unreality" of Superman being able to disguise himself with a pair of eyeglasses drove the writers into paroxysms of how to explain it.  That, or I recall a number of "imaginary stories" (aren't they all?) in which the writers would wistfully explore what might happen should some of Superman's "conceits" (I mean that in the literary sense) get resolved.

Seldom from that era do I recall a major battle or something "beyond" Superman's ability.  Indeed, the very character concept seems to revolve around nothing being beyond Superman for very long.

My all-time favorite story (which I would love to read again on this site) is "The Immortal Superman" from 1970 or so, which-- for my little mind at the time-- gave me the first inklings of the angst of mortality.  I still recall a panel (in my mind after 35 years) where Superman, gray in the far future, was gassed by three individuals garbed like Spectres of Death.   Weakened, Superman wonders "Am I dying?" and falls toward the environmentally-poisoned streets thousands of feet below.  Later we learn that Superman cannot die and is cursed to spend the remainder of his years an irrelevent icon of past glory.  Chilling!  Esp. since it was not an imaginary story, but part of Superman's continuity.  The story was a treasure trove of science fiction concepts.

One thing writers (classic or modern) don't explore much is a god-like being living honestly in the modern world.  I mean, Truth-&-Justice Clark would not use his powers to live beyond his means.  Which means his salary as a reporter would have to pay his freight.  He can fly to other galaxies, but still has to pay rent.  Even the use of his powers to type a story faster than Lois, and thereby advance his career over hers, is ethically wrong for that most ethical of all characters.

I can understand what modern writers are trying to achieve by "humanizing" the character.  But they've made the fatal error of giving *Superman* the angst instead of giving that over to Clark.  Superman has no angst, other than worrying how his meager paycheck can buy a gift for someone he cares about and knowing that the use of his superpowers to advance his "personal life" is morally and ethically wrong.  

Writers have instead spoiled this opportunity by making Clark a superstar-- anchorman, football jock, etc-- instead of, essentially, a loser.  Siegel and Shuster understood this early on when Clark could never "get the girl."  All the powers in the universe... and you can't even get a date.

Clark doesn't have to experience catastrophe; that's an unnecessary and silly sacrifice to preserve his identity.  But just the realism of day-to-day life ("I don't really want to go to work today, would rather fly around the universe, but I have a story to file and can only type 100 words per minute.") would be fun to explore.  The fact that he *must* be weak in his mortal guise and suck up humiliation and everyday frustration is a great concept, greatly humanizing to the concept of Superman.

[TELLE]

I can understand what modern writers are trying to achieve by "humanizing" the character.  But they've made the fatal error of giving *Superman* the angst instead of giving that over to Clark.  Superman has no angst, other than worrying how his meager paycheck can buy a gift for someone he cares about and knowing that the use of his superpowers to advance his "personal life" is morally and ethically wrong.  

Clark doesn't have to experience catastrophe; that's an unnecessary and silly sacrifice to preserve his identity.  But just the realism of day-to-day life ("I don't really want to go to work today, would rather fly around the universe, but I have a story to file and can only type 100 words per minute.") would be fun to explore.  The fact that he *must* be weak in his mortal guise and suck up humiliation and everyday frustration is a great concept, greatly humanizing to the concept of Superman.

One of my favourite riffs on this theme is in the novel "Last Son of Krypton" by Elliot S! Maggin (see elsewhere on this site).  Superman almost dies in a galaxy-spanning adventure and on his return to earth Clark uses an alien spice to win a bet with Steve Lombard over who's favourite drink is better tasting.