Are you talking Superman 2000, or was there a separate Superman 2001?
I thought that there was some controversy over the Superman 2000 idea of marriage -- having it be something in the past that only Superman remembers (with Brainiac being the super-kiss of forgetfulness), but Morrison wanting to do more with it?
I have very vague memories of this proposal, but what I'm talking about is the Superman semi-reboot idea that was shot down and not used, put together jointly by Tom Peyer, Mark Waid, Morrison, and some other guy. The unused proposal had an instant way out of the Super-Marriage: Lois Lane dies. Superman asks Mxyzptlk to bring Lois Lane back to life, and Mxyzptlk does so...on the condition that everybody in the world, including Lois, would forget Clark Kent and Lois Lane were ever married. But Superman would still remember.
It was an interesting, intelligent way to get out of the Super-Marriage, while at the same time "using" the fact the marriage happened to give Superman a new characterization.
At the same time, my point was that even if the marriage could be undone in an interesting manner, it would not be desirable at this point.
Superman is special. His powers give him some immunity to feminine wiles.
There have been stories that show Superman is certainly vulnerable to women. Superman was willing to give up being Superman for Lori Lemaris and for Lyla Lerrol, for instance. And all through the seventies there were hints dropped by Len Wein and others that Superman and his relationship with Lois and Lana had a sexual/physical dimension.
In the great "Who Took The Super Out Of Superman" -- as I recall -- he found himself attracted to one of the Marigold twins only after he had become a normal man.
I interpreted this as some of the elements that make Superman or Clark Kent start to slip into the other identity, so you get a ballsier Clark and a far less "workaholic" Superman.
(Or, if not his powers, his enormous sense of responsibility is what stops him relaxing his resolve enough to marry.)
Having huge responsibilities is made bearable by a significant other. The Chinese Premier once said in a TIME magazine interview, that if not for his wife he wouldn't be able to sleep nights.
This is the Doc Savage justification: "I have too many enemies and too many responsibilities to possibly have a wife."
Other characters have used it, too, including Superman, but the only character it ever really worked for is Doc Savage himself, and that's because Doc is remote and emotionless (and a bit inhuman) enough that it's possible to see Doc give up women entirely.
I would agree with you, that Superman's responsibilities would keep him from being interested in women, if we went by the Steve Englehart characterization in his JLA and issue of DC COMICS PRESENTS, where Superman is very explicitly an alien and an extraterrestrial - in other words, when he is most like Doc Savage.
As written by Maggin and others, though, this justification isn't terribly strong, because Superman has a level of humanity about him. For instance, witness the way Maggin had Superman get jealous when the slick, good looking Green Arrow was "making time" with Lois Lane in "The Junkman Cometh."
Alan Moore never thought much of this justification. There was one hilarious interaction in his SUPREME:
SUPREME: Well, I thought because of, ah, who I am, we could never be together.
GIRLFRIEND: What, are you anatomically abnormal in some way?
Julian - Reed Richards and Aquaman are hardly in the same class as Superman.
Of course. What I meant to point out was that being a superhero and being married, are two things that are not incompatible. More importantly, though, a superhero being married in the long term can have longevity. It can WORK.
"Inertia" is not a characteristic exclusive to DC's comics.
True. I want to strangle every peabrain that says Spider-Man "has to stay a teenager," for instance. And DC has made some great steps, especially with less than flagship characters, for organic character growth beyond the original concept: Dick Grayson becoming an adult with his own identity comes to mind.
In DC though, the more of a "flagship" character you are, the more calcified everything gets.
Thor for instance, had a relationship with Jane Foster all through the sixties. However, it ultimately just didn't work out and people can accept a Thor book without Jane Foster...all this despite the fact that Thor tried to move Heaven and Earth for Jane and make her immortal.
On the other hand, one of the first things the recent GL writer, Geoff Johns did, was bring in Hal's sixties girlfriend, Carol Ferris, and rekindle their relationship, despite the fact that since then
This example is not perfect, because there are many differences between Carol and Jane, naturally...but one way the example works is that both are girlfriends the hero had back in the sixties, because it's required by Natural Law that the hero have a girl. Carol Ferris was your Lois Lane/Iris West type, and if it was at all possible, Jane was even MORE boring, so it isn't because of either Jane or Carol's originality or sex appeal that they were brought back or not brought back. And it is true that both Thor and Jane Foster in the interim have had other girlfriends, indeed, they've had more compatible ones that are more their physical and mental equals (Arisia and Lady Sif).
Yet, Hal Jordan got his sixties gal back recently, and yet Jane hasn't been seen since the sixties when their relationship didn't work out.
By adding marriage, something else is lost: the hero's edge, the adventure element...
Well, who's to say marriage can't work as an extension of "superhero family-building?" Thus bringing in even more of an adventure element. The single greatest disappointment of SUPERMAN RETURNS was, to quote Roger Ebert, "Superman's son should be brassy and fun, like the Spy Kids."
If Maggin is right and Lois is a Catholic, we're pretty much guaranteed to have Janet-El and Steve-El and Juan-El just WALK out after a little while.
You mention the Phantom, and maybe marriage was one of many things that gets him down. But on the other hand, Tarzan's best book after his first one was TARZAN AND THE ANT-MEN, which had Tarzan happily married and with a son. True, his son and Jane were offscreen while Tarzan was fighting the Amazons and Ant-Men, but adventure is compatible with a married hero. It gave Tarzan motivation to escape out of that anthill.
What kinds of personal conflicts are left? You get Superman bickering with his wife, or his wife nagging him that they never go out anymore. Or Superman starts casting a secret super-eye over the other women in the office. It all just makes Superman look small, and he should be the big gun in comics.
Previously, I agreed with you, mostly because the Super-Marriage HAD been written very much in the manner you describe: used to make Superman look small.
Kurt Busiek has made it a very human kind of love story, which is at the same time strangely domestic, and is one of the most interesting elements of his current run on the book. He, and Geoff Johns, have changed my mind on the subject because they haven't fallen into the emasculating traps that you describe.
Does this include perpetuating an elaborate hoax of a secret identity, and doing lots of things to try and maintain a job at the Daily Planet because somehow that grants him access to lots of information he couldn't readily obtain otherwise? That is where the "bigger fish" thing falls apart.
I think what Aldous meant was that Superman is a grandiose hero and he should worry about "big" problems instead of picayune Spider-Man stuff like getting Baby Zack-El his formula that evening. I agree with him, and the marriage is written wrong if its an unending, banal series of domestic problems.
But I think you do have a point: if Superman has time for Clark Kent, he can have time for a marriage too.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM