Superman opinions you're disdainful towards.

[marhawkman]

Well, bias is going to influence a writer to some degree; there isn't an author in the world who evades their own bias completely. The only time you see true impartiality is if someone writes about a topic they don't care about at all.

But a little bit of personal bias slipping in isn't a problem, as long as that writer is able to express the opposition's view well enough for someone to understand their perspective. If their argument isn't handled as tight, at least it's still there and (presumably) is tight enough to not look like they're being purposefully thrown under the bus.

For example, personally, I think the NRA takes the second amendment too far. I support gun ownership and own several of my own, and I'll be damned if I'd give them up. However, I think the NRA has gone completely insane. And if I were to write a story about gun violence and gun rights, odds are I wouldn't do as good a job defending the NRA's position as I would someone else's. But I could still get the main points of their argument and counter-argument onto the page.

But how do you take the second amendment too far? One of the founding fathers gave a very succinct summary of it's purpose. Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."

If nothing else, all you have to do is Google the "other side" and just spit their talking points from their homepage back at your keyboard.

Obviously, in a situation where one side of an argument is objectively wrong, you don't have to worry about it as much. No need to make the Flat Earth Society look like they're sane and educated people who might actually be right in their opinion.

But in cases like that you don't bother trying to present both points of view equally.

There's a big difference between intentionally showing only one side, and showing both side but misrepresenting one to make them look obviously wrong.

[Jon Clark]

Most everything else you bring up are valid concerns, but I think it largely just falls under the heading of "bad writers write bad stories." I wouldn't want to see someone like Lobdell dive into social issues with Superman; he seems to lacks the nuance (I do need to check out his Rebirth Outlaws). And it won't matter if Lobdell was writing an opinion I agreed with or that was supported by Superman's character, it'll be a bad read. But a good writer capable of handling the topic material? Largely removes your concerns.

And politics is certainly something comics shouldn't approach without the right creators behind it. That's been a caveat from the start.

I agree, but I think you have more faith in the majority of writers than I do. I think the guys with the skill to write political stories are few and far between.

I doubt with the current structure at DC there is anyone who could write and get published a story where a major DC team (Titans, Justice League) face a political issue and we see reasoned disagreement where it doesn't devolve into two factions, one of which is shown to be clearly wrong by the end of the arc.

For one thing I suspect most of the people left after all the editorial strong-arming share similar worldviews, Guys with writing talent and experience who didn't see eye-to-eye with editorial haven't come back after leaving during the New 52. So there is some sort of either echo-chamber or dictating from the top down how stories will go.

And for another I suspect they are true believers who honestly think they are showing the balanced argument and that their own conclusions about the argument are what the characters and readers would come to. So Lois and Clark commenting on politics and history during their vacation wasn't heavy-handed preaching- it was just how rational people would act.

[marhawkman]

I agree, but I think you have more faith in the majority of writers than I do. I think the guys with the skill to write political stories are few and far between.

I doubt with the current structure at DC there is anyone who could write and get published a story where a major DC team (Titans, Justice League) face a political issue and we see reasoned disagreement where it doesn't devolve into two factions, one of which is shown to be clearly wrong by the end of the arc.

Yeah, stories always seem to get written with a bad guy, which means that point of view is written to be obviously wrong. :/

And for another I suspect they are true believers who honestly think they are showing the balanced argument and that their own conclusions about the argument are what the characters and readers would come to. So Lois and Clark commenting on politics and history during their vacation wasn't heavy-handed preaching- it was just how rational people would act.

Yeah, it's basically just them expressing their own opinion on the printed page.

[CharlesInCharge]

Superman goes evil if Lois dies. How I loathe thee.

[CharlesInCharge]

The big one: "Superman is an idiot/moron/unintelligent".

I can tolerate "He's overpowered and just a boyscout".

I can, very slightly, tolerate "He goes bad if Lois Lane dies".

Say this to me, though, and you'll be lucky if I don't strangle you.

[Ascended]

I agree, but I think you have more faith in the majority of writers than I do. I think the guys with the skill to write political stories are few and far between.

I doubt with the current structure at DC there is anyone who could write and get published a story where a major DC team (Titans, Justice League) face a political issue and we see reasoned disagreement where it doesn't devolve into two factions, one of which is shown to be clearly wrong by the end of the arc.

For one thing I suspect most of the people left after all the editorial strong-arming share similar worldviews, Guys with writing talent and experience who didn't see eye-to-eye with editorial haven't come back after leaving during the New 52. So there is some sort of either echo-chamber or dictating from the top down how stories will go.

And for another I suspect they are true believers who honestly think they are showing the balanced argument and that their own conclusions about the argument are what the characters and readers would come to. So Lois and Clark commenting on politics and history during their vacation wasn't heavy-handed preaching- it was just how rational people would act.

Oh, Im not burdened with an overabundance of faith in DC management. But whether DC has the chops for what we're talking about wasn't the point (at least, thats not how I took it). DC's got a couple guys who could tackle a political issue and make it work though. They don't work on Superman, but there are one or two who could.

However, given the people DC gets to work on the character? Best to avoid topical issues. But theoretically? Totally doable.

[Ascended]

But how do you take the second amendment too far? One of the founding fathers gave a very succinct summary of it's purpose. Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed."

Are you asking how I think the 2nd can be taken too far, or how Superman might feel? Because I'm not interested in discussing my personal politics (at least not at the moment ) and as I said before, I'm not sure what Clark's opinion might be since gun rights has rarely been touched by the character. I'd have to do some research to get an idea. But the fact that I can't narrow down where he might stand is something that's been itching in the back of my mind, so maybe after mid-terms I'll do a little digging.

But in cases like that you don't bother trying to present both points of view equally.

There's a big difference between intentionally showing only one side, and showing both side but misrepresenting one to make them look obviously wrong.

No one is talking about intentionally misrepresenting anything.

And if you're using the same main argument a political side is using in their marketing and campaigning, you're not misrepresenting them. Maybe you're not tackling their argument with the finesse you are the side you agree with, but if, I dunno, the NRA's website (just because its the example from earlier) says "We think X, Y, and Z!" and you write your script using "X, Y, and Z" you're representing them just fine.

[marhawkman]

The big one: "Superman is an idiot/moron/unintelligent".

Heh, Kal-El is a genius beyond what most people can even comprehend. One in-universe explanation for how he can write for the Daily Planet AND Superman all day is just that. He can write Pulitzer prize worthy stories all day long if he tries. There's actually one story(which involved a Phantom Zone projector) where Superman specifically stated that HE was the only one on Earth who understood how to make one. IIRC the exact phrase was "There's only one mind on Earth capable of this."

Are you asking how I think the 2nd can be taken too far, or how Superman might feel? Because I'm not interested in discussing my personal politics (at least not at the moment ) and as I said before, I'm not sure what Clark's opinion might be since gun rights has rarely been touched by the character. I'd have to do some research to get an idea. But the fact that I can't narrow down where he might stand is something that's been itching in the back of my mind, so maybe after mid-terms I'll do a little digging.

Supes doesn't make a practice of disarming non-criminals, but Superman stories have a habit of showing everyone who's not a criminal as helpless, soo....

There have been a few exceptions, like throwing nuclear missiles into the sun and stuff like that.

[Ascended]

Supes doesn't make a practice of disarming non-criminals, but Superman stories have a habit of showing everyone who's not a criminal as helpless, soo....

There have been a few exceptions, like throwing nuclear missiles into the sun and stuff like that.

I do get the feeling that Clark's opinion on firearms and his opinion on WMD's are fairly different. But again, I'd have to do some digging to get an idea of what his opinion on guns and the 2nd might reasonably be.

[Adekis]

The big one: "Superman is an idiot/moron/unintelligent".

I can tolerate "He's overpowered and just a boyscout".

I can, very slightly, tolerate "He goes bad if Lois Lane dies".

Say this to me, though, and you'll be lucky if I don't strangle you.

I can't tolerate any of those, honestly.

I particularly get annoyed with this "Clark needs Lois" crap. Lois Lane is an absolutely integral part of the Superman franchise, but she is not an integral part of his character. She doesn't keep him good. In fact, he's shown on not a few occasions that he's a better person than she is. That's important too! She doesn't anchor him to humanity; that's Clark Kent's job!

As for his intelligence- it's okay for Luthor or Brainiac to think Superman is a meathead, as long as the writers don't think Superman is a meathead. And certainly the fans should never think so. Ultimately, I'm going to go ahead and blame that one on Frank Miller and his "You're dumber than Clark" moments.

[Kuwagaton]

I'm not sure I've ever seen a writer explain Clark as a meathead. Even Frank Miller has been very clear about thinking something entirely different. People refuse to believe him, so I wonder what will be said when YO comes out and he proves his point.

[Adekis]

I don't think it matters whether Frank Miller really thinks Superman is a meathead or not. Personally, I'm inclined to believe him when he says he doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he portrays Superman as a yes-man doing the government's dirty work, and when his demagogue Batman, problematic or not, calls Superman an idiot, the audience is inclined to believe him. Miller might well have understood his own work differently from how it came to be accepted; it happens to artists all the time.

[marhawkman]

I do get the feeling that Clark's opinion on firearms and his opinion on WMD's are fairly different. But again, I'd have to do some digging to get an idea of what his opinion on guns and the 2nd might reasonably be.

Well, he dislikes the idea of good people being helpless to stop bad people soo....

[Kuwagaton]

I don't think it matters whether Frank Miller really thinks Superman is a meathead or not. Personally, I'm inclined to believe him when he says he doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that he portrays Superman as a yes-man doing the government's dirty work, and when his demagogue Batman, problematic or not, calls Superman an idiot, the audience is inclined to believe him. Miller might well have understood his own work differently from how it came to be accepted; it happens to artists all the time.

Those depictions are intentional. He absolutely made Diana and Hal look just as "bad" on purpose, if anything just not understanding the deep level of offense taken to his work or not caring (he's from that generation of creators who didn't apologize for comics). To him it makes perfect sense that a Batman story set outside of continuity can throw other characters under the bus in ways that stories actually depending on how they're written would not.

[Ascended]

Well, he dislikes the idea of good people being helpless to stop bad people soo....

Clark's also used guns before.

And he's had some extinction-event contingency plans that, depending on your definition, count as WMD's (like his planet-wide Zone projector thing from For Tomorrow).

But all that does is show that he's not totally against firearms like Bruce is. It doesn't really tell us where he draws the line on things like regulation, background checks, the role mental illness plays in gun violence, etc.