Aldous writes:Your thoughts on Superman and Batman, and which version of the world they are better suited to, are very interesting. Yes, I can see exactly where you are coming from, and there's no doubt Superman doesn't belong in the world of "The Dark Knight Returns". But then, if he doesn't fit (which is painfully obvious), doesn't that give you a big clue that he IS Superman, and not a "loser" who isn't Superman (to quote DBN).
Let's make sure we're participating in the same argument here. I don't share DBN's view that Superman is not Superman in this story. In fact I agree with you that Miller understands the Superman of the Silver and Bronze Ages and does a good job of plopping him down in a world he can't handle. Compared to what other writers would do to him in the years after DKR -- making him a whining victim, a morally conflicted doofus and a murderer -- Miller's Superman is almost as "on model" as Maggin's or Hamilton's.
The point I'm trying to make -- apparently without much success -- is that Miller was telling a story about a world where Superman's strengths become weaknesses. And it is not intended to be a wholly fictional world. Miller sets the tale in an unspecified future, but the talking heads of the media, the appearances of Reagan and Letterman and so on tie the tale solidly to the 80s. Miller isn't projecting some possible future, he's commenting on the here and now. And that means he's saying that Superman is as useless and irrelevant to us in the real world as he is in the DKR world.
And the part I don't like about all that is he's absolutely right. Miller takes an objective look at both characters and sees that Batman resonates in the modern world; he has a purpose. Superman does not; he's an anachronism at best and a fraud at worst. He nails down something we all knew on some level already, but it's uncomfortable to have it pointed out so starkly.
Consider: Superman was at the top of his game in the Golden Age when he tapped into a need for heroes who could take the law into their own hands, inspiring tons of imitators. He adapted to the post-War years by becoming the defender of the status quo, and stayed on top through the mid-60s with the same approach. That's not to say the 50s and 60s were a perfect era, but they were the last time we allowed ourselves to believe we could achieve perfection. Superman's world was not our world, but it was our world the way we liked to imagine it. Then came Vietnam, race riots, Watergate and a never-ending parade of troubles and our illusions of an idyllic America were gone. It's no coincidence that Superman began losing popularity just as the Marvel crowd took off, and in fact from the late 60s on, it was all downhill. By the 80s, Superman had little if anything to offer comic fans which is why he was rebooted. I think this is what people are really getting at when they say he was "too powerful." It's not about how much he can lift or whether he can move a planet, really. It's about whether he has any relevance to our lives, our world, our problems and our hopes. 1980s Superman was pretty much the same thing as 1960s Superman, but the audience grew up when he didn't.
This is why I, along with everyone else, rooted for Bruce to pound Clark's face into the pavement in issue 4, and why I cheered when he did. Which in my book, makes this a great Batman story but a hard read if you like Big Blue. Miller doesn't make Superman a bad guy here by having him kill or maim or anything like that; he makes us furious with him because he's the same guy he's always been, and it's not good enough.
I would say to DBN, OK, fine, the guy in red-and-blue in "Dark Knight Returns" is not Superman. So, who is he? Or, to pin you down a bit more, if the Superman we know and love (Silver Age/Bronze Age) was faced with that world and those circumstances, what exactly would he do, and how would he behave? If not how Frank Miller has suggested, then how?
I know that's directed at DBN, but I'd like to chip in a thought.
This is the same reasoning people use in defending Byrne's decision to have Superman kill the Phantom Zone villains. "What else could he do," they ask, "Under the circumstances?" The problem with that argument is that Byrne is the one who created the situation. Byrne decided he wanted Superman to kill and so he moved heaven and earth to create a story where it could happen. So the complaint is not that Superman does a terrible thing; it's that Byrne orchestrated it so that he "had to."
It's the same with Miller. He has a comment to make about Superman here and creates a situation where he can make that comment. So yes, Superman might do what he does here given the circumstances. But why did Miller set it up that way?
There's two answers: one, Miller is making the argument that to be true to their roots, superheroes need to work outside the law and be bigger than life...certainly bigger than government approval. By the time the book came out, that had been lost for decades.
The second reason is that if you're going to tell a story where Batman...or any other hero...matters at all, you have to deal with the 800 pound gorilla in the room, and that is Superman. Green Arrow's outnumbered by the Royal Flush gang? No problem, call in Superman. Batman can't stop the Joker before he blows up the reservoir? Call Superman, he can stop him in the blink of an eye. If Miller was going to sell the notion that ONLY BATMAN can fix things, he has to account for why Superman and the rest of the League can't do it. Thus the removal of Diana to Paradise Island and Hal to space, and the neutering of Superman, who as you say will never abandon us, even if he won't go all the way and fix what really needs fixing.
Quote
Clark refuses to live up to his potential.
All right. Then what is his potential? What would you have him do? That particular story may be harder to write than you realise.
Superman cannot live up to his potential in this story. That was Miller's intent.
Superman lived up to his potential in many stories by Seigel, Hamilton, Coleman, Schwartz, Maggin, Bates et al. But then they were paid to make him look good. Miller was paid to write a Batman story.
Quote
But in this story, a paragon of Silver Age ethics...as Clark is...becomes a useless clod.
This is what I'm saying! That's why he's still Superman, even if you don't like how Frank is presenting him. Maybe he has presented a truthful aspect of Superman that is uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean it's not really Superman in that story.
Aha, then we are on common ground aren't we? It's not that I think Frank's version is WRONG, it's that I don't like seeing Superman put in a situation that points out his irrelevance. Again, Miller isn't just saying Superman is useless HERE, he's saying that Superman as a character passed his sell-by date a long time ago. The fact that I agree doesn't make it fun to comtemplate. I like to see Superman in his element and at the top of his game. That doesn't make this a bad story, but it doesn't make it a good Superman story...for me anyway.
I get the feeling we're going in circles, but anyway what it comes down to in the end is a matter of taste. I like DKR and I respect Miller's frankness (no pun intended) in pointing out Superman's failings. But when I make my list of favorite Superman stories, I'm not likely to ever include the one where we learn just why Superman doesn't work anymore. Intellectually, it works, but emotionally it don't make me happy.
Merry Christmas, Aldous, and everyone.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM