Wow - what a post. This one got me very interested while perusing.
...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.
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.
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?
The bottom line is, Superman being "virtuous" 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.
I think that simply speaks volumes for the writer himself, but I know what you mean.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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... 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.
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.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM