Alan Moore had it wrong (Whatever Happened spoilers)

[Jon Clark]

Just because someone else could do what you do doesn't mean it has no impact. It just means that you made the impact instead of someone else.

Besides, I thought Superman does what he does because it's the right thing to do not because of the glory of his actions.

The quotes by Superman weren't about glory. It was him literally saying "I was too convinced that just because I could do good, that I had to do ggod all the time. I really could have set back a lot of the time and let someone else handle it".

[Agent Z]

The quotes by Superman weren't about glory. It was him literally saying "I was too convinced that just because I could do good, that I had to do ggod all the time. I really could have set back a lot of the time and let someone else handle it".

And I see nothing cynical about that idea. In fact, it may be one of the most optimistic things ever said in a superhero comic.

[manwhohaseverything]

And I see nothing cynical about that idea. In fact, it may be one of the most optimistic things ever said in a superhero comic.

For an existentialist it might be the most freeing and optimistic thing. But for someone who still wants to believe there is a reason why we are here and everything, everyone matters in the grand scheme of things. It can be scary and cynical . Just my observation. I don't exactly know either way,if we matter/are irreplaceable or not. That if we decide to let it go. Someone else can/will take the spot. I have seen both happening in my life.

[Jon Clark]

And I see nothing cynical about that idea. In fact, it may be one of the most optimistic things ever said in a superhero comic.

To me it's a sort of permission to be selfish. It's saying that you never need to offer anyone help, because a hypothetical someone else is waiting to help them out. I'm not endorsing the idea that Superman or anyone else needs to be on call 24/7, but the other end of the spectrum is walking past a burning building with people screaming for help and figuring that even calling 911 isn't your responsibility because someone else will do it instead. And to me Jordan Ellis seemed closer to the latter than the former in his attitude towards Superman.

[Agent Z]

To me it's a sort of permission to be selfish. It's saying that you never need to offer anyone help, because a hypothetical someone else is waiting to help them out. I'm not endorsing the idea that Superman or anyone else needs to be on call 24/7, but the other end of the spectrum is walking past a burning building with people screaming for help and figuring that even calling 911 isn't your responsibility because someone else will do it instead. And to me Jordan Ellis seemed closer to the latter than the former in his attitude towards Superman.

"I was too convinced that just because I could do good, that I had to do ggod all the time. I really could have set back a lot of the time and let someone else handle it".

It takes a very liberal reading of this quote to come away with the idea that Ellis is saying you have no obligation to ever help anybody because it is never your responsibility. I agree that Superman or other heroes shouldn't be on call 24/7 but I don't think you realize you're unintentionally arguing that they should be when you accuse this story of promoting selfishness.

[rpmaluki]

I think both arguments have potential to be taken to the extreme unintentionally. Superman having the ability to help and doing so can degrade to an high expectation of him having to always help without him taking some time for himself (that's not emotionally healthy), just as Superman choosing to take a break can be easily turn to him not caring enough to help when needed most (which is morally selfish). Neither is actually true, nor should they ever be. Clark sees a need and helps. That's what he does but we can't honestly expect him to keep going 24/7 non stop just because he has the potential to do so physically. If God can have a rest on the seventh day, is it so wrong to want the same for himself after hard day or millenium of work? That's not the same as Superman intentionally turning a blind eye to suffering/villain of the week etc which he will never actually do.

[dancj]

I don't think it was the pay-off that regular readers deserved at the time.

I was a regular reader at the time, and I thought (and still think) the story is fantastic. Probably my favourite ever Superman story.

[greatmetropolitan]

I appreciate Whatever Happened... as a story because it's Alan Moore and he's an astonishingly gifted writer....but I don't like it. Ultimately it does what Moore did with a lot of his superhero work, which is deconstruct the superhero and make them less wondrous, less of an aspiration. In Whatever Happened, all the goofy villains were turned into monsters, and the existing monsters were basically deemed too dangerous to live (See: Mxy). The crazy Jimmy Olsen and Lana lang stories were literally killed in front of us, and then to cap it off, Superman loses his powers while talking about how he was arrogant he was. Moore ultimately doesn't like superheroes or superhero characters. And that's fine, he's still one of the best comic book writers of all time, if not the best. But do I really want that for a capstone on an era of Superman? No.

Great story. Just not the Superman I wanted. Give me the Morrison take any day.

[superduperman]

I think the ending is very 1980s. "Live for yourself, don't worry about other people". It's a very selfish mindset. I don't mind that he retired because he lost his powers so much as he seemed very cynical about the very idea of Superman. "Oh, well. I was stupid for spending all those years helping people. I should have just done my own thing". I don't think that's the kind of ending he would get today and I don't necessarily think that's the kind of ending Moore would give him today. I get that DC wanted to send him off on a "happy" note but this attitude towards his super hero adventures just sort of struck me as kind of tacked on because they didn't how else to end it on a happy note. How do you end the adventures of a guy who had powers his whole life and then lost them? By having him say he never really wanted them anyway. "He's happier now without them". I guess. Until someone at his work gets crushed under something and he can't get them out.

[Soubhagya]

Its one of my favorite Superman stories. The only thing which i don't like is its too dark. In order to tie everything up neatly Krypto, Lana, Jimmy as well as Pete Ross die. Bizzarro's end might be the most shocking one i have read in any comics. I am particularly saddened by Pete Ross. That felt like Tim Drake from Batman Beyond:Return of Joker. Others at least got some moments to shine.

But that's life. Nothing lasts forever. Everyone dies. We don't get what we want. If Superman has to end someday, why not like this? All of his enemies vanquished, leaving the world much safer. His loyal friends go out in a blaze of glory, trying to save him. And that love triangle ended so satisfactorily. It was always those two. (Due to some reason people forget Lori. But anyway). Superman chose Lois. She was his actual love after all. But she did not fight against Superman's enemies during that last stand.

And Superman. He retires. He hangs up his cape. But he does so on his own terms. Give up being Superman. Rather then compromise with his ideals. In his eyes it was wrong to kill Mxyzptlk. He lost by winning, but won by loosing.

He defeated Mxyzptlk by breaking his rule. But he gave up being Superman rather then his ideals. Perhaps, he was selfish. No one is perfect. The other classic For The Man Who Has Everything showed his deepest desire. Home and family. Krypton. So, there might be something in there. But imo the primary reason was because he killed. This time there was no other way. With Mxyzptlk there wasn't. He could change the very fabric of reality. It was the most difficult hour in Superman's life.

And he was upto it. With Superman its not only about winning. But also winning in the right way. Such a figure is ideal as a legend for the 31st Century.

[Jim Kelly]

I was a regular reader at the time, and I thought (and still think) the story is fantastic. Probably my favourite ever Superman story.

I read it at the time and thought it was fantastic (although very heart-wrenching for me and probably the saddest comic book I've ever read). I'm just saying that it doesn't pay off on any of the stories that were being told up to that point, by other writers. It doesn't give any of them the chance to wrap up their Superman.

It's not a great pay-off of the Martin Pasko Superman or the Elliot Maggin Superman or the Cary Bates Superman. And maybe one of these writers had earned the right to do the kind of story they wanted to do as their last Superman. I think Cary Bates of any of them was probably the writer who had that right, given how much of his life he had devoted to the Man of Tomorrow.

[JackDaw]

If that is the case. Moore also tied up most of those ends as well with his villains going down, so no need for superman . But i do think it is a bit cynical.

I think it's a unusual interpretation to regard Superman's actions in the story as cynical.

The prime driving force in him sacrificing his powers was surely idealism, the idea that however that nobody had the right to killl outside the law...especially Superman.

Beyond that I think it's a reasonable interpretation of his subsequent belief that world would get along fine without Superman is that he had a profound belief in other people, a faith that some one would always rise to the challenge...to me that's poles apart from cynicism.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think it's a unusual interpretation to regard Superman's actions in the story as cynical.

The prime driving force in him sacrificing his powers was surely idealism, the idea that however that nobody had the right to killl outside the law...especially Superman.

Beyond that I think it's a reasonable interpretation of his subsequent belief that world would get along fine without Superman is that he had a profound belief in other people, a faith that some one would always rise to the challenge...to me that's poles apart from cynicism.

I think it is a bit cynical because it lessens the importance of superman. If a superman doing the right thing to make the world better place is not important in the grand scheme of things and to the world. Then the rest of us(normal folks) are really less than insignificant specks. Whose actions wether good or bad doesn't amount to anything. That is just me.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think the ending is very 1980s. "Live for yourself, don't worry about other people". It's a very selfish mindset. I don't mind that he retired because he lost his powers so much as he seemed very cynical about the very idea of Superman. "Oh, well. I was stupid for spending all those years helping people. I should have just done my own thing". I don't think that's the kind of ending he would get today and I don't necessarily think that's the kind of ending Moore would give him today. I get that DC wanted to send him off on a "happy" note but this attitude towards his super hero adventures just sort of struck me as kind of tacked on because they didn't how else to end it on a happy note. How do you end the adventures of a guy who had powers his whole life and then lost them? By having him say he never really wanted them anyway. "He's happier now without them". I guess. Until someone at his work gets crushed under something and he can't get them out.

I don't think that is what Moore was going for at all(Maybe i am wrong) . This was meant to be sombre tale of how "Man of tomorrow" became irrelevant mixed with some silverage goofy tone. And how time caught upto even him. If you read "for the man who has everything" and this story.We can clearly see that Clark even though loved helping people. His greatest desire is a family. Clark was starting to batman a little.Clark just realised a never ending battle will go on even with out him. He didn't have a reason to go back. He had no powers. His villains that magically appeared after he bacame superman were gone. Legion basically said his role is basically done as Hero due to death or other factors. And world didn't seem to care. People just went on with their lives. So, naturally their might have been new villains and heroes to take his place for the newer generations to continue the battle. He decided to do the healthy thing, rather cling onto something that has had it's time. He let it go, for somebody else to take over.
Besides, Jon having powers is clear indication that "the ride isn't over yet".
It is stupid you think that Clark can't live like us. Can't deal with morality(yes that includes incapability to deal with scenario you mentioned ). Then he shouldn't be called super "man".

[Soubhagya]

I think the ending is very 1980s. "Live for yourself, don't worry about other people". It's a very selfish mindset. I don't mind that he retired because he lost his powers so much as he seemed very cynical about the very idea of Superman. "Oh, well. I was stupid for spending all those years helping people. I should have just done my own thing". I don't think that's the kind of ending he would get today and I don't necessarily think that's the kind of ending Moore would give him today. I get that DC wanted to send him off on a "happy" note but this attitude towards his super hero adventures just sort of struck me as kind of tacked on because they didn't how else to end it on a happy note. How do you end the adventures of a guy who had powers his whole life and then lost them? By having him say he never really wanted them anyway. "He's happier now without them". I guess. Until someone at his work gets crushed under something and he can't get them out.

I have a different view. Superman says that after 10 years has passed. Not in his prime. The world has moved on. It hasn't fallen into pieces. And he is content. He deserves that after doing so much. We all think that our own worlds won't work without us. He has moved on.

Edit: Well this point has been made by manwhohaseverything.