Superman Through the Ages! Forum

It occurs to me just WHY characters like Superman and the Sub-Mariner, at least to me, provoke unusually strong signs of identification....and also why it is important to keep them alive even when they are temporarily dead (either creatively or literally)...and then revive them as soon as possible.

They're both great, complicated characters in their own right, but it's more than that. They're symbolic.

Namor's 1940s girlfriend, Betty Dean Prentiss, put it best in an issue of SUPER-VILLAIN TEAM-UP: "Namor's kind of a symbol to me. A man alone taking on a world that is so often cruel and sometimes - sometimes - winning."

Superman on the other hand, is a little harder to summarize in a single sentence like that. He's symbolic of the sheer can-do ability to do anything, brains and pluck and power and whatnot.

Lots of people look to Superman as a model of absolute moral perfection, like the Catholic Saints...and while Superman is an idealist and incorruptible, I'm not as certain of the absolute unshakable importance of this as others are. If I had to pick, it's more important for Superman to be INTELLIGENT than to be Mother Teresa.

People gripe about Superman's execution of the Phantom Zoners, to the point where the recent continuity thread doubts if it is still in play  Doesn't it seem like the first thing that would get the axe, after all? Considering the recent story arcs involving the Zoners by Johns and Donner that seem to suggest a different Zone entirely? Lots of people, even fans of Byrne and Wolfman, don't like this story.

What's more, I've seen this story defended, but I've never seen anyone say they LIKE it.

Don't get me wrong, I object to the specific circumstances surrounding the PZers death (their deaths at Superman's hands were pretty gutless: they had lost their powers and were essentially at Superman's mercy), but the whole idea that if Superman has ONE death on his hands he's somehow "ruined" forever is aggrivating. It reminds me of certain Arab and African cultures with their obsessive fixation on female virginity.

For me, it's not as important to have Superman's be absolutely squeaky-clean all the time, as it is to have Superman be intelligent. I can live with a bad writer having Superman kill two decades ago, but Superman being just another muscleman in the here and now is non-negotiable for me.

Superman just throwing a punch is a failure of the imagination; that's not how Superman does things. He does stuff like deflect a hail of bullets by plucking one bullet and then throwing it at the others in just such a way that it causes all of them to ricochet away harmlessly. Or finding the one person in a football stadium that's a bomber by listening to everybody's heartbeat and finding the one irregular, anxious one.

In fact, the idea of Superman being this almost unreal paragon of goodness is frankly, untrue: Superman can and does LIE. Not just for little things like preserving his secret identity, but also for creating elaborate charades that defeat villains. In other words, of the two characteristics, Big Blue's brains win out over his honesty every time.

Speaking of Namor, does anyone else think Namor looks like you imagine those Michael Moorcock non-human races? The ones that are always described as looking human, yet at the same time have some quality that means they're always identifiable? Prince Corum's Vadhagh, Elric's "part-demon" Melniboneans. There was a cryptic hint in one of the John Daker/Erkose books (the name escapes me, but it's the one with the Erkose/1930s Von Bek team-up) that the reason these races are so similar is because they are the same race, scattered over the Multiverse just as humans are scattered.

Maybe Homo Mermanus is a particularly unusual branch on Marvel-Earth's dimension. It is true many Moorcock races have a connection to the sea: Melniboneans are master ship-builders (note that King Straasha is the only elemental Elric could call without a ritual), and Erkose's Ghost Women live entirely at sea and on ships. A water-breathing variation isn't unlikely. Also, Marvel-Earth IS a part of the Moorcock Multiverse: remember the John Buscema Conan/Elric team-up? It established there was a Melnibonean tomb on Marvel-Earth during the Hyborian Age.

What someone like Elric would make of Marvel-Earth exclusive features that are distinctly Moorcockian in flavor like the Celestial Madonna, Dormammu, and the Bloodstone family, is anyone's guess.

Pom pom pom pom pom [pensive sound: I've given up smoking, so I have to make noises like this now when I want to indicate that I'm thinking]. Julian, with all due respect, don't you think you're falling into the rather trite argument that Superman is the Big Blue Boyscout and is therefore a bit boring?

In some ways I agree with you, because if I wrote Superman and had complete editorial control, I'd probably make him take a stand more often: I'd have him block the paths of loggers in the Amazon and fly off to Eastern Europe to allow Gay Pride marches to pass unmolested and all sorts of stuff like that, because I'm a card-carrying¹, lily-livered liberal (indeed a Socialist, and yeah, I wrote that with a capital "S" just like Kal-El sports). In other words, I'd have him be a bit more interventionist than he is now. Where I think your argument falls short, though - if I've understood it correctly - is that since Namor is willing to do pretty much anything in order to get his point across, including killing, he is somehow morally superior. I'd like to take issue with that, because the whole point of Superman's code against killing is that he's so powerful, he doesn't even have to kill you.

It seems to me that the Sub-Mariner is the superhero equivalent of the guy who pulls a gun on you "Cos you didn't show respect, man, knowuhmsayin'?" when you accidentally stepped on his foot while getting on the bus. Hot-headed and violent, he's probably more than a little insecure; true, he's trying to make the world a better place, but he's doing so in an arbitrary and ultimately fascist way, by forcing events. Superman, by contrast, is entirely confident in his powers, and understands what they mean: nobody can hurt him, so what need has he of pre-emptive strikes?

Of course you're entirely right about Superman being a bit of a liar: in fact, he lies quite a lot, even more than I did when I actually had a day job and had to account for my whereabouts. However, apart from that minor² character flaw, the guy is, to use your phrase, squeaky-clean, and there's also a perfectly good reason for that: yes, Superman is incorruptible; yes, Superman prefers non-violent solutions; yes, he's a paragon of virtue. I don't really see those facets of his personality as limiting, but rather as a natural outcropping of being who he is: of course he's incorruptible, what the bell³ are you going to bribe him with? He's got everything anyone could want. And since he's the man who has everything (as Alan Moore once termed him), he has no use for violence or malice: He's at peace.

The point I'm laboriously trying to make is that, like you, Julian, I want a Superman who is intelligent above all; however, I don't see how that should conflict with his morals. In fact, I suppose you're saying that you can either be smart or Mother Teresa; I'm saying that if you're smart, you are Mother Teresa (apart from all the contentious religious stuff, okay?), especially if you're Superman: there's no great effort to being virtuous when you can do what he does.

Namor, on the other hand, is a guy who lives underwater and has a bad temper; if he stopped to think of the ramifications of his powers, well, he'd become a regular Jimmy Stewart.

¹ I don't really carry a card.
² Lots of people do it, like bigamists and drug barons, it's no biggie.
³ Again with the aitch ee ell ell thing.

I never said they were.

But you said before that some people that think Superman is boring because he's a big boy scout. Most of the time, that can be used to drive stories forward and make Superman a more interesting character. For instance, he wouldn't sacrifice a child to save a country.

But those that make that argument are RIGHT: there are ways that this personality trait CAN be used to make Superman unlikable and remote.

The most irritating example of this I can think of off the top of my head is Waid's KINGDOM COME, a future where the Joker has killed the one woman Superman loves. But here comes a violent, results-oriented hero that whacks the Joker in retaliation.

So....Superman puts Magog on trial?

Waid's intention may have been to make Superman look saintly here, but it ultimately makes Superman look alien. Responding this way to the death of one's true love is downright inhuman. Yes, true, we didn't see this from Superman's point of view so maybe there's more to the story, but the end result is Superman comes off scary, as a fanatic...no different from people that turn in family members or lovers to totalitarian regimes, because they value "rules" more than a profound human connection like love or family.

The bottom line is, Superman being "virtous" can be used to make him creepy in the hands of a bad writer, or a writer having an off-day, if its all about certain "rules" Superman never breaks.

But Superman being smart and clever and tricking enemies? That's ALWAYS fun to watch.

Also, I don't think that's entirely fair. Superman's "Abe Lincoln" humanitarianism is a part of who he is, certainly, but it is emphasized far more often as being Superman's most important attribute as a heroic character by many writers...when really its his intelligence that's the more important and defining factor in defining not just how Superman behaves, but his modus operandi as a superhero.

Consider: read a Superman comic, and its attributes are far different than any other comic in plot: it's all about the exileration of Superman doing some fantastic deed (we KNOW he's going to save the falling plane or whatever, what's clever is HOW, what weird stunt Supes comes up with), as well as his clever plan to overcome what seems like an insurmountable dillemma (e.g. alien threatens to blow up the earth). This is very different from, say, FANTASTIC FOUR, where the essential plot is something like, "FF goes on vacation, and on a tropical island encounters a giant alien robot."

Some people don't like SUPERMAN II, but of all the versions of Superman in the movies, it feels the most like the Bronze Age comics. It could have been written by Len Wein or Cary Bates. Step 1: Put the gun on the wall (the Red Sun Chamber). Step 2: Introduce a problem that it looks like Superman can't solve (Zod). Step 3: Fire the gun on the wall (using the Chamber to trick Zod).

What I'm saying is, Superman can survive not being a Catholic Saint, but he can't survive being a flying version of the Incredible Hulk. That, I think, is the REAL problem with the 1990s: not that Superman had maybe killed in the previous decade...but that Superman actually throws a punch. Actually throws a punch!


Namor's no different from any other superhero, including Superman, in that he uses force to impose right and wrong on the world. There's nothing fascist about that in a superhero context. The big difference is that Namor is a misanthropic member of an inhuman race to which he has his primary loyalties...so he's going to come into conflict with humanity sometimes. No different from Superman. Remember "The War Between Krypton and Earth?"

And I really doubt Namor's insecure. Part of being arrogant is, you think everything you do is absolutely right.


Whoa, whoa, hold up - I'm not giving Superman a liscense to kill here. That's not consistent behavior with what we know about Superman, and certainly a guy with his power level has lots of options other than just whacking people.

What I am saying, however, is I don't think Superman as a character is 'broken forever" or even "damaged goods" if he killed at some point in the distant past.

This is not an endorsement of Superman killing, but rather the recognition that superheroes can ultimately bounce back from these things.


What? I didn't make that argument. What I said was, the reason the Sub-Mariner and Superman provoke such a strong response from readers is because they are symbolic of something. Namor as the "one man vs. the world" and Superman of a kind of do-anything pluck for which little is impossible.

You mention politics a few times in your post...one weakness of political argument is that a tack or approach that defies left/right black/white, is often baffling...and so people that disagree with what you're saying not only argue with what you've said, but also with things you didn't say, and love to label even when inappropriate.

The War Nerd, Gary Brecher back in the early 00s was anti-Iraq War, for example, and anti-Victor Davis Hanson, so his detractors labeled him a liberal and a peacenik (the IRONY of the War Nerd, who despises Jimmy Carter, being called a peacenik!). Gary Brecher opposed Iraq because he loved a good clean war and because he was a patriot, and for techie and logistic reasons. So obviously guys like Hanson, used to liberals, attacked his arguments in a very...confused...way.

Here in supercomics land, we're used to our version of left/right, black/white, which is the mentality that results-oriented heroes like Magog or Wolverine are better than "fair play" milk-drinkers like Hal Jordan or Captain America (or the reverse belief). I didn't make that argument anywhere - but you HEARD it, though, because you're hardwired to fight the Evil Empire.

A particularly obnoxious comic book store employee once labeled me a "Modern Age doofus" because I love Gail Simone and Geoff Johns.

Heh. If only he knew!

Wow - what a post.  This one got me very interested while perusing.


I didn't quite get Supes as "alien-looking" per se.  What I found most compelling about Lois' death at the hands of Joker, was that Supes was denied the right to justice.  Consider if you will that Superman's entire life as a hero was to stand up for truth and justice.  With any criminal taken into custody - Superman would expect they be faced with justice to the fullest extent.  Naive - yes, but that is, IMO the charm of Superman.  He "chooses" to impose certain rules on himself.  He doesn't have to, he chooses to.  An infinitely powerful, almost god-like character - who chooses to impose certain morals on himself to live amongst the human race.  That is greatness.  However, this was a case of a personal affront the likes of which as far as we could tell he never experienced.  Therefore, Magog, already a disciple of "giving as good as one gets" basically took away Superman's chance for justice - for himself.  Resultantly, Superman's necessary failing for the beginning of the story - how can he provide justice for all when he was utterly incapable of providing justice to himself?


I think that simply speaks volumes for the writer himself, but I know what you mean.


I'm inclined to agree with Permanus on this point.  By definition, arrogance is "having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride; "an arrogant official"; "arrogant claims"."  Of note, "unwarranted importance".  Someone demonstrating this characteristic is "hiding" something.  Be it his own views of himself, his contempt for someone or something else, whatever.  But he is "hiding something" about himself.  I believe in Namor's case, and this is my own hypothesis, that Atlantis or homo mermanus is a dying breed, or that he himself really doesn't have a right to claim them as his race as he's a mutant.  Poor boy's got alot against him.  He, however, is all about "defending his people" and "hitting back" and only when really fought against by someone with some admirable quality to him does he come to a solution to the benefit of all.  To me, Namor considers everyone your enemy until you prove to him that you are not, then he decides he can like you.  But, your argument on Namor's alignment is well taken.  One could conceive Namor being very friendly to his own subjects, and a fair, kind and loved ruler.  However, Superman doesn't just maintain this with one race as Namor would.

Superman simply "is" and onto himself.  He's approachable, caring, kind, etc.  Superman decides he likes you 1st, considers you a friend 1st, and typically takes you at face value.


I really don't see this as a line of logic for Superman not being defensive.  However, I'm of the school where Superman would be Superman with or without powers - and views them more as a gift and an earned privilege than a right.  I think Superman is willing to be harmed and hurt.  Case in point, when confronting a new foe, he's got no clue what to expect from them in terms of powers, etc.  Yet he generally still just flies right up and takes whatever happens.  Sure, more than likely he won't be harmed, and there is confidence in that.  However, even Namor would do something like that if he was so inclined. 


I only just recently read the Phantom Zone story in question.  I thought it was interesting that that was the last drawn by Byrne story before he left that title.  Don't read too much into that, but I thought it was interesting timing.  Recently I also studied what the Russian Zod character was actually supposed to be.  I discovered he was supposed to originally be the E1 Superman who was being controlled by the dead Zod as Superman's new enemy.  What a wild trip that would have been.  It is interesting to note that Superman in essence did "bounce back" so to speak in that there have been many, many stories where this wasn't such a factor.  I don't believe I saw it come up in Infinite Crisis outside of an aside by Kal-L.  Also, let us not forget he also "saved" a universe in the Phantom Zone - which should have been a sort of personal exoneration.  However, I can see your point, Julian, regarding Superman not bouncing back - only to the degree where it is brought up by a writer or damning of Superman in critiques.  I think the real deal breaker for me is whether or not Superman really needed to kill those PZ guys.  More on this later.


I didn't particularly see that argument in your post, Julian, and as stated I see your point regarding the whole "Superman ruined" item.  It is interesting to note that there is another time Superman killed post-crisis - and that was the Doomsday storyline.  Yes, Doomsday came back, but we didn't necessarily know it til Reign of the Supermen.

When is it OK for Superman to kill?  This is a pretty interesting concept to consider.  Well, in view that his killing Doomsday was nowhere nearly as criticized as his killing the Zoners - obviously we seem to be OK with his killing in defense of others.  It was missed as a point 'cause obviously Superman died too, but the fact remains he was completely resolved to use lethal force and did.  One could grant him "just cause" and that would be the end of it, and seems to be the case here.

In the Zoners point, the damage was done - and the universe was extinct.  But the real reason for the extinction had everything to do with the "heroes" of the planet.  To review the story again, it was that universe's own Lex that was the cause of the problem and the cause of the extinction.  In this case, what was Superman really defending?  Our new Superman was sorely out of his class, as the real culprit was obviously a universe-class Time Trapper manipulating that universe.  All those lives, tossed to simply battle his own enemies, the Legion.  I could go on with this but I mean really, what a psychotic situation.

Ok, now come the flaws and the contrievences that I can see for this story. 

Everything is gone and completely desolate.  There is nothing left to defend in the entire universe.  Further, the Zoners are now completely and utterly powerless.  Why, after all this, does Superman now worry they might make it to his universe?  Although the real chances are pretty low, he exposes them to Green K to kill them to further allay his concerns for the off chance they survive the barren Earth, that as well on top of that, they might get their power back?!?  We are talking very low chance here.

What would have been the more correct or poetic justice?  I believe the Supes I know and love would have taken his chances with the powerless Zoners and left them to the heck of their own design.  Superman dealt with them well enough on his own, and if they surfaced on his Earth, he'd have an entire world of heroes and villians to defend it (a la Invasion).  And why couldn't he?  He had Thanagarians, Daxamites, etc. His home universe would never really be in any serious danger.  (In the pocket universe there was just Earth.)  In this scenario, here would have been Superman applying his intelligence.  In short, there really was no real point to killing them, outside of revenge for a race and universe that was destroyed.  This was more rightly a Namor-eque type handling than Superman's.

This is also why I so thoroughly dislike Superman offing the Phantom Zone villians.  That was so utterly and completely unlike Superman it was sick - and the overall story, full of a ton of holes and ultimately seemed like a simple point of showing he was different cause he killed.  This doesn't make Superman damaged goods, but this also isn't Superman.  It would have been a much better story to discover years later that he was being influenced by someone else (the post-crisis Brainiac for example) to heighten his self-doubts and set him up for destruction.

However, I personally would like to shoot the person who started to associate Superman being a "boy scout".  This is not directed at you Julian - but I believe it was simply attributed to him by somebody who really doesn't get the character.  I suppose once this was a term to describe virtues, but as much in today's day and age, has been degraded down to someone who abides by long deceased morals.  I personally believe that when morals are viewed as un-needed or un-necessary, we are in for some severe trouble.  But, philosophic meanderings aside, in Superman's case, his values and morals or code of ethics are qualities that are exactly what is needed in a hero such as Supes - and as I opened up with, completely necessary.

As to "looking alien" - heck, that ain't all that hard for anyone.  All it takes is someone to disagree with "the masses" to look like an alien.  I don't believe that groups are anywhere near as effective in making sense as an individual, and here we had a case where Superman was trying to do the right thing despite the Roman bread and circus of Metropolis.  Unfortunately Superman's PR rep was asleep and Magog's was in full swing.

As to the idea that Superman is a "paragon of" whatever - again, guys who miss the point of the character, but heck, maybe I'm the one.  Superman would be the last guy, I would think, who would say he was a paragon of anything.  He's not, but he's more right than he is wrong, and that counts for something.  I suppose getting one's giddy kicks out of seeing admantium claws rip through guts every other time they're deployed qualifies one to know what a hero is.

Julian,

Use of force? Yes, Superman is the star of "Action" Comics and he's a physical marvel. Conflict with humanity? Too sweeping. Superman is never at odds with "humanity" in the same way Namor is. Misanthropic? Yes, Namor can be. Superman? Never. Fascist? Namor is pretty close to it. Superman, never.

The link, or lack of differences, you are trying to string between Namor and Superman is gossamer-thin.

And Namor's over-the-top arrogance definitely indicates insecurity. In fact, I hadn't ever really thought about it before, but "insecure" describes him perfectly. Any deviation from his view of how the world should be, and especially how he believes others should act, sends him into paroxysms of rage and desperation.

Perhaps Superman's saving grace is his compassion, which is the most highly developed of all the super-heroes. I really think if you are trying to see similarities between Superman and Namor, you can't get far beyond "super-strength" and, at a stretch, "nobility".

Well, no arguments there. I remember an absolutely dire Brave & Bold story from the 70s in which Batman tricks some alien invaders into believing that all earthmen have superpowers in order to frighten them away, and what does Superman say? "Thanks, good thinking", maybe? No, he says "Well, I don't really approve of lying, but in this case I'll make an exception". I wanted to strangle him.


Criadoman responded to this better than I could, but basically I think arrogance is insecurity's cloak.


Well, he would be sort of broken for me, mainly for sentimental reasons. There's something comfortable about Superman's non-lethal world. I see what you mean, though; it's just that I'd rather writers didn't explore that particular path. Basically, I think of Superman's virtue as something that should remain untarnished, and I don't deny that I'm conferring a sort of messianic status on him. Remember that scene in Watchmen where Laurie accuses the Comedian of being a rapist and he helplessly responds "Only once", as if that made it any better? Well, I feel much the same way Laurie did.



Well, okay, no, you didn't say that. I was exaggerating for effect. Guilty!


Actually, "Only once", but I did it in such a shrill manner that it must have seemed like it was all I was talking about. I'm a sort of political Liberace sometimes. I certainly take your point about labelling, but it does help when you don't want to take up too much space. For a more nuanced view, see my Response to Julian Perez' Superman=Namor Post, vol. 3, pp. 458-502. (Incidentally, your Gary Brecher example reminds me of the confused responses of the Conservative Party in Parliament when Labour took us to war. They were plunged into the situation of having to agree with Labour, though it stuck in their craw.)


Well, okay, you didn't actually say that, I just think it's the logical offshoot of what you're saying. And of course it isn't, really, but now I've chosen my path, I've got to stick to my non-lethal guns and pretend it is.

Basically, if I may make a less biased assessment, I think our disagreement is that you, being a cold-blooded, vicious murderer, think that Superman might kill someone and bounce back from it, and I, being delightful and splendid in every way, think that Superman should never kill anybody, ever, BECAUSE IT WOULD RUIN MY LIFE.

Mind you, I think (and it's hardly an original thought) that there is an aspect of the superhero genre that appeals to the fascist in all of us: it's an empowering wish-fulfilment fantasy.

You'll have to explain that one. Wishing for what, exactly, and how does it indicate fascism?

Well, I mean that in the superhero genre, the reader's frustrations with everyday life are dealt with by the fantasy that he or she is endowed with great power, and uses it to shape the world to his or her advantage. You know the sort of thing: "My boss wouldn't shout at me if I had Superman's powers". I think it's an essentially fascist trait (and I use the word in its broadest sense) because it holds within it the concept that might makes right, and is perforce self-justifying and unreasoning: I am frustrated with the world, and I want the power to submit it to my desires.

I'm not talking about the way comics are actually written, of course, just how we, the readers, respond to the archetype of the superhero. It tickles our id. That doesn't make all comics readers fascists, of course - I just mean that all people have those impulses in them. Sorry if I'm making a hash of this explanation, I'm doing the best I can.  :-\

A good surmise, but the problem is all of this is happening offscreen.

I haven't read the KINGDOM COME novel, but I almost guarantee it will have Superman's response to the death of Lois Lane make some kind of sense.

The biggest mistake Waid made in KINGDOM COME (besides the general humorlessness and lack of warmth - it feels like STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE for DC Comics, trying to be Big and Important without making us remember why we like these characters in the first place) is that Waid told the death of Lois from the point of view of Magog, and so we're denied Superman's inner mental state. All we see is that Superman put Magog on trial for murder. Worse, from what we SAW, there's a sense it was all done not because it was the Joker, but just because it was a murder. It could have been of anyone. Which is a downright alien way to behave and think.

Magog says he thinks Superman is old fashoined and a little nuts. And really, the way the scene was presented...it's hard to disagree with him. You can't just treat something with that much personal involvement as just another crime.


You know, this reminds me of the controversy in the NEW TEEN TITANS letters pages about whether it was right for the Titans to use lethal force against Gordanians and the Citadel during the first Blackfire story arc. Marv Wolfman's response was something along the lines of, "Well, it is a war, and so the usual rules of conduct don't apply."

Thus, the whole "it's in space, so it doesn't really count" argument was born! :D I mean, that's like the ultimate loophole. Apparently, outer space is a little like Vegas: what happens in outer space stays in outer space.

Seriously though. I absolutely think under the right set of circumstances Superman will kill and it would be moral of him to do so.

The problem is, such a situation will only exist if the writer creates it, and this leads to a bigger question: yes, it must happen sometime...but do I really want to read about it?

Consider: at some point, Tarzan must have had sex with an ape. I mean, it MUST have happened. He lived with them well past puberty. And JUNGLE TALES OF TARZAN had one flashback story where Tarzan tried to woo a female ape. That story, incidentally, was a little like reading the diaries from Se7en, in that it pretends to be a perfectly normal document but actually is unbelievably deranged.

Would anyone really want to read about that, though? (Well, maybe Howard Lovecraft.)


Oh, come on, you're making Namor sound like a petulant child. Namor can take bad news: Sue Storm said no, and he was able to take no for an answer. In fact, the reason Namor pursues Sue is not because she doesn't want it, but because she DOES.

In fact, Namor's acceptance of the fact he gave Doctor Doom his word to serve him in SUPER-VILLAIN TEAM-UP was downright quiet, internal, philosophical. "I have lived a very long time...I have little regrets. But I do not wish to be Doctor Doom's slave."

Yes, Namor doesn't take crap. You don't put chains on Namor (as a few sorry suckers discovered in DAREDEVIL #7), though this is less of a function of insecurity as it is Namor's fundamental dignity. "I go before your judge...but NEVER in CHAINS!"

Yeah, but just to elaborate, my reading of that is that Magog is criticising Superman for being oldschool and not part of what one might term "the new world". But then, isn't Magog conveniently forgetting that he's one of the begetters of this new world, and in fact dissing Superman for not coming to his party? Of course, on a visceral level, you want Superman to fry the Joker with his heat vision, and slowly too; however, it isn't beyond human ken to imagine that he would simply bring him in. By bringing Lois' killer to justice, Superman's just doing it by the book, regardless of personal involvement, which is something policemen and legislators have to do all the time (if you want a real-life example, my girlfriend's brother is a policeman, and a couple of years ago, he had to arrest their nephew, but then got relieved from the case because of the conflict of interests; all very embarrassing). Magog thinks Superman's nuts, and Superman thinks Magog is irresponsible - in fact, it's a clash of generations.

While Namor is one of my very favorite Marvel characters, he really bears little resemblance personality-wise to a superhero (much less a Superman). Noamor is more like a warrior king like Kull or the afore-mentioned Elric. In fact, comparisons between Subby and Elric are pretty interesting. Both have bizarre appearances that set them apart from their subjects; both possess powers far beyond their ordinary people (Elric's sword and sorcerous skills, Namors strength, flight and amphibiousness); both men have lost their loved ones to their respective nemeses, and both have largely brought chaos, strife, and ruin to their own peoples. Personality-wise both men are noble, yet highly cynical. Both men have impetuous natures and pretty vicious tempers.

As an aside, in the Justice League animated series Aquaman 2-parter, I felt that Arthur's personality was very Namorian.

Welcome to the forums, Amazo!


Yeah, that's true, isn't it?

Aquaman has been changed a great deal to be much more like Namor. For instance, Aquaman didn't have superstrength in the beginning. And there have been occasions where Namor has demonstrated powers far more Aquaman's style, like commanding sea creatures (especially when written by Golden Age lover and Aqua-Fan, Roy Thomas).

Aquaman's been written, post-TIME AND TIDE, as a character with a temper, just like Namor. This leads to Morrison's characterization in JLA, easily the most swaggering version of Aquaman ever.


Interesting comparison.

Though I don't know if Elric has a temper as such - that's almost too human a character trait for him to have. It's more along the lines of an ability to HATE far, far more deeply than a human being.

Elric's berserk battle frenzies are less fueled by rage and anger as Namor's, and more by the memory of his Melnibonean ancestors: a kind of perfect, pure evil untainted by ordinary earthly motives. Because Elric has something like a conscience, obviously he finds these fits deeply disturbing.

That's one theme inherent in Moorcock and the Eternal Champion that I've always loved: the idea that the battle of good vs. evil is fought between a brutish, thuggish evil of the present that worships force, against an older, more flawless evil of the past that laughs at the upstarts. The best example of this is in THE DREAMTHIEF'S DAUGHTER, where Von Bek leads a horde of dragons to fight the Nazis in the Battle of Britain.

BLOOD! BLOOD AND SOULS...FOR ARIOOOOCH!


If this is about the nerve gas putting the Atlanteans to sleep back in his first magazine, I would hardly say that was Namor's fault...at least to the extent it is for Elric, who led a fleet to attack his own people.

Here I think, we come to the main difference between Namor and Elric: Elric and Namor are both kings, and both outcasts among their own kind, but Namor takes to the role of monarch, whereas Elric feels estranged, only invokes his kingship when he wants a favor from Dvyim Tvar or Dvyim Slorm, and when he WAS Emperor, he was clearly confined and dissatisfied.


Interesting you should mention Howard, because there's a paragraph from "Worms of the Earth" that can very much have been said by Namor if you change the words around.

This day I stood still and watched a man of mine die on the cross of Rome. What his name or his rank I do not know. I do not care. He might have been a faithful unknown warrior of mine, he mgiht have been an outlaw. I only know that he was mine; the first scents he knew were the scents of the heather; the first light he saw was the sunrise on the Pictish Hills. He belonged to me, not to Rome. If punishment was just, then none but me should have dealt it. If he were to be tried, none but me should have been his judge. The same blood flowed in our veins; the same fire maddened our brains; in infancy we listened to the same old tales, and in youth we sang the same old songs. He was bound to my heart-strings, as every woman and every child of Pictland is bound. It was ine to protect him, now it is mine to avenge him.

Yup.  You're right.  Funny that I recall at the time reading the story that things were taken a bit brief there, but I was OK with that and gave Waid and Ross the benefit due to how distantly numb Superman looked when Diana mentioned it.  It was rather touching, and hard not to imagine the above.


Agreed.  There does come a point where I could see that the only option would be resorting to that - however, the Zoners weren't it.  Doomsday was - as appears to be the consensus and I agree.  But, it would seem to me to be a wonderful aspect for Superman when younger and uncertain about his abilities has an accident or circumstance or some experience that really forms the whole "code against killing".  I'm not saying he'd have to kill someone, but what a great story that would make.  It's a lot like what I like about "Secret Identity".  The creation of Superman, how Clark develops into him made sooo much sense and really touching.  But to me, it worked in SI because he was the only superhero and had to figure things out himself, and confront the "secret empire" himself.  You kinda lose that impact when GAge GL did the same thing years prior, and Kal should have consulted him.  I can't quite seem to ever forget that Superman was the reason for the rest, and that should ring true in his books and interactions in the DCU.

Not to get too sentimental here, but on a bit of a tangent, and I really don't know how this might get fixed outside of possibly a set up similar to Alan Moore's Supreme series and the concept of the Supremacy where the all the out-of-continuity Supreme's teach the new avatar the ropes.  The thing is that Superman shines best as number 1.  1st guy with a secret ID, 1st guy that's a superhero, 1st guy who sets the standard for others, etc., in his respective universe.  He loses a lot when there are "mystery men" before him, I think.  One of my more saddening moments of all things was the revised timeline in Zero Hour where Jay Garrick was the 1st superhero.  What a joke!

OK, enough of that.


Well, back to topic.  Sure, there are similarities between Namor and Supes, in that they both are aliens to us (or "us" as represented by the normal Joe's of their respective universes) - but outside of the basic similarities; demeanors, attitudes and conduct - they're not.  But, never have they been more similar than when Byrne did Namor.  Secret ID and all.  Spooky.  Not to say that Namor's blood weakness wasn't clever - but it did kinda take away from Namor's personality a bit IMO.  I've always liked him best as anti-hero.  There was some real gold about him in Supervillan Team Up.


Actually, I thought Aquaman's superstrength was a brilliant insight by whatever writer put it there 1st.  You'd have to be pretty darn strong to swim fast, long and deep.  But, the whole "pressures of royalty" crap and "I against the surface world" is just plain stupid!  Why try to make him more like Namor?  Arthur has always been the most light-hearted hero done right, IMO.  Funny, but I think the Superfriends and Smallville got him the most right out of anyone.

Namor, especially post-Golden Age, has always struck me as part of the Marvel tradition of "alien" anti-heroes.  I would include Vision, Black Panther, Black Bolt in there.  Maybe Thor.  Proud, not always in synch with contemporary mores or emotional life.  A man out of time who differs distinctly from Captain America.  His characterization seems closer to J'onn J'onzz than to Superman in the DC-verse, with a few exceptions (maybe Kingdom Come?).  Superman is very human, raised in small town USA.  Namor may have more in common with Supergirl of maybe some of the more repentent Phantom Zoners or Kandorians.

Namor in Super-Villain Team Up vs Namor in Invaders is often very different --the same man, 30 years apart?  Invaders Namor is different from early FF Namor vs 40s Namor vs Byrne's Namor (I read several issues while drunk during the late 90s, that's it, I swear).  The main factor?  Different writers or different decades, I can't decide.

Wow, that's a good idea. It might make an interesting story where Superman's sole solution to a problem is to kill, and the subsequent anguish he experiences over it. It might be great for a Superboy story, as you say, because such an experience would certainly shape and color his view of the entire phenomenon. Lots of Superman stories have been fundamentally tragic; it would be interesting if it was someone "asking" for it, as was the case in the Robot X story.

I agree with what you're saying, essentially, that Superman's Code vs. Killing works best when it is a function of something other than a hardassed "rule" that he obeys, and is more a function of life-changing experiences and a veneration of life itself. One of the most wonderful additions that Elliot Maggin made to Superman in his novels was the idea that Superman sees life in a totally different way, as luminous, beautiful beings, and it is this sense of awe and mystery that is the cause of his code against killing - an idea used later by Mark Waid.

This idea has always been better in concept than in execution. A dead dog convinces Superboy to reveal himself to the world? The scene was written so histrionically ("It'll never happen again!" (sniff) ) that I just couldn't stop laughing.


Actually, I think I remember reading somewhere that at one point in the DC Universe, the first known superheroes were the Crimson Avenger and Zatara.

As for what you're saying, I don't know if I agree 100% with this.

One of the reasons that UNDERWORLD UNLEASHED is one of the few of these large crossovers that I truly like (along with COSMIC ODYSSEY and THE AVENGERS-DEFENDERS WAR) is because Superman is not center stage, he's just another one of the characters, and other people (notably the Trickster) got their chance to shine. One of the real weaknesses of the Morrison JLA is that it was "Superman, Batman and Friends," with Superman and Batman generally being the one to solve problems. I love Superman and all, but give other people a chance to save the day. Heck, remember the stunning upset Elongated Man gave the Lord of Time during the Len Wein years? Didn't see that coming.

As for Superman being the first superhero vs. Superman as a significant hero but not the first...like Alex Ross, I was always very much in favor of the first option because it gave Superman his deserved role in history.

That is, until Geoff Johns's JSA. That book convinced me of the value of the singleverse where the JSA came before Superman and the rest, for several reasons:

The biggest reason is it gave the JSA a new identity, a grandiose one that defined them as something more than being "the slightly older JLA of a parallel earth." Namely, the JSA are elder statesmen, the most experienced, who created the hero and the heroic legacy, which continues not just in their members, but in their legacy: hence the presence of INFINITY INC. people and types like Cyclone and Stargirl. Ordinary people may look up to the JLA, but the JLA look up to the JSA.

Superman as the first hero is a great idea...but the JSA as the first, and as the subsequent keepers of the flame with a relationship to the "later" Silver Agers, is a great one too.

I say without hyperbole that Geoff Johns's JSA is the single most important DC comic of the past ten years. More important than INFINITE CRISIS, more important than the Peyer HOURMAN. Because this book radically redefined not only who the JSA are, but what the DC Universe looks like. Time was, JSA was a pet project of Roy Thomas and a favorite of the most hardcore of fans, one of those titles that gets resuscitated every five years to get canceled again after 30 issues, like Doctor Strange, Green Arrow, and so on. Now, it's unthinkable to even imagine a DC Universe without a JSA as a constant presence, and it's because of the niche for them that was created by Johns.

If you look at the current DCU, it looks like what Johns was doing back in 2000: emphasis on examining DC history, use of minor characters in a serious way, "character doctoring," returning classic characters to rightful roles (Hal Jordan, Hawkman, Dr. Fate), new visions made up of all sections of a book's history (as in he used classic JSAers, but also members of INFINITY INC. and later additions) and an emphasis on talented writers telling characterization-centered, LOST or HEROES style stories (e.g. what Gail Simone, Busiek and others are doing).

Also, if you really want to get technical, Superman was not the first costumed hero on Earth-1. One of the interesting oddities of the multiverse, along with the fact that Gardner Fox exists on both Earth-1 and Earth-Prime, is that the Manhunter was active on both Earth-1 and on Earth-2 at the same time on both earths.

I love that idea!!  I've seen posters call this "spirit vision", but I personally think this idea is brilliant.  One of my typical main complaints about the Silver Age were the obviously forced times that Superman or Superboy were wholesome and white-bread characters.


Whoops, that went somewhere I didn't expect.  But, I'll clarify my earlier point.

As far as I can tell (and before making this reply I did some research to find out), the term "superhero" started with Superman and his ilk, but the term "mystery man" was applied to guys like the Crimson Avenger and his "father" the Shadow.  The 1st time I saw the "mystery man" term used was by Jonathan Kent in the Supes books, and I distinctly got the impression he was saying that the term "superhero" didn't exist till after his adopted son. 

You're right as far as I know.  The Crimson Avenger didn't go to tights till well after Superman's debut if I remember correctly.  Manhunter was adventurer/vigilante, as well as Zatara who was more a Mandrake clone and an adventurer.  When I use "superhero" I'm using the "fictional character who is noted for feats of courage and nobility and who usually has a colorful name and costume and abilities beyond those of normal human beings" definition - not the "mystery man" term, which I switched to in my paragraph following Jon Kent's lead in the books.

That said...


I don't think Supes needs to be center stage.  Although I didn't mind Superman and Bats being so key, myself, in what I recall.


I recently read the entire JSA series.  I liked what I saw.


Well, this is my own difficulty with this.  Supes was the trailblazer for each of those guys - a concept that I have a hard time buying in terms of retconning.  The main reason I loved the whole E1 and E2 concepts was because Superman was there at the outset on his respective Earths.  Hard not to see Supes as the soul of those superhero universes and the standard by which they all follow.


I don't disagree with you there.  I really did like the JSA series and especially liked how they are a bit more of the patriarchs of superheros thing.  For me, the only real importance of IC was simply that Superman was again a Golden Age hero. 

See, I go back to when DC pre-crisis really started establishing the importance of Superman (e.g. Sword of Superman, et al.) where you didn't miss how important or relevant Superman was in the DCU.  Sure, you can say Kingdom Come, Funeral for A Friend (which was an outstanding story line I thought) - and that's all fine.  But, here's an example...

Superman starts his career in 1938 by stepping in and getting involved in justice straight away.  Although not explored as much as it could be, Supes does have run ins with the justice system a bit.  I don't see where the JSA ever had to deal with that in their Golden Age incarnation.  (Funny, I think I just found another similarity between GA Superman and GA Namor - I needed to seeing how off topic this is heading.)  Here's the point, Superman (and Bats, I suppose for that matter) had been there and done that - and established the relationship of superhero to justice system by the time JSA got going.  Now, how much fun would it be in later, "more sophisticated" years for a writer to explore that more?  How Superman and superheroes became official deputized lawmen - without the "forced" moral items we talked about earlier?  I mean in both the stories themselves and the writers of the stories, it rapidly became the standard thing that superheroes were helping and were ok.  Again, this harkens so much to what I liked about Secret Identity - boy did Supes have to pay Heck to pave the way!


I've got no argument there.  You do make some valid points, but the Supes trailblazer aspect is something that is very sentimental for me.  On a more personal note, you know, my 1st experiences with superheroes were Marvel, in particular, the cartoon Marvel heroes show that reran on my local TV station after school.  With those guys, I could take them or leave them.  What dear ol' Stan would say is the reason Marvel heroes were so popular - 'cause they had real problems, really wasn't all that interesting to me at 7 or 8 years old.  But, with Superman, it was an escape (I read mainly Silver Age reprints of Superman when I was younger - DC Digests and the Superman Filmation 'toons).  A much friendlier and caring universe.  So, I tend to be incredibly biased to the character, for good reason.

I, for one, love the story of the pocket Kryptonians. It's actually one of my favorite. I have no problem with Superman killing if he sees no other option. Furthermore, I love that the villains pushed him to do something that he abhors. That makes them effective villains.

Hi karasu, welcome to the forum.  Thanks for your post!


When I first read "pocket Kryptonians," I thought you meant these guys (http://www.greatkrypton.com/superman/micro.php?gallery=kryptonians).


I would agree that they would be effective villains if they had intended to push him to do something he abhors.  That's what Manchester Black was all about, trying to push Superman to kill.  But the PU-villains weren't trying to do that - they were trying to stay in power as universal dictators.

If the pocket universe Trio had defeated Superman and taken over his universe - succeeded in their aims - then they would have been effective.  And if Manchester Black had succeeded in pushing Superman to kill, then he would have been effective.

But as things worked out, neither of them succeeded.

True it may not have been intentional, but the effect was undeniable(at least back then). I don't know what other choice he had, but it really did a number on his psychology. I think I would even prefer it if that were where his deepest belief in his no kill policy came from.

Thanks for the welcome. :)