Is Superman a hard character to write?

[manwhohaseverything]

Yes, Superman is a difficult character to write. It didn't used to be this way because the character started off rather simple - the greatest strongman ever who fought against corruption and was the champion of the "every man". This at its core was the appeal of the character and why he became so popular - he was just some quasi powerful dude who beat up bad guys. As the years went on and his powers expanded exponentially, Superman's adventures evolved to the point he was really no longer the champion of the people but rather an omnipotent being who had to be written in weird, fantastical tales in order to be challenged. In the meantime, DC and Marvel created new characters or readjusted established ones to serve as the people's champion, making Superman irrelevant (or at the very least unnecessary) in that role. I think it's hard writing a character that is a moral compass of sorts for all other characters, while also so powerful that him battling villains like Toyman or Prankster seems ridiculous, and therefore those characters have more or less fallen by the wayside. Now Superman has to be written down or written up for any particular story, to the point he's portrayed inconsistently.

Bingo!! We have a winner. I am in complete agreement. Thank you, someone gets it.

[Patrick Gerard]

The fundamental problem with a morally perfect character like Clark is that (as with Goku in Dragon Ball) after he comes to Metropolis and deals with the culture shock (growing accordingly as a character) his character arc becomes a flat one. Unlike characters such as Batman and Spider-Man who each have flaws, they can never completely overcome (Batman's obsession with justice and Spider-Man's burden of responsibility which come into conflict often with their civilian identities) Superman has no such shortcomings to constantly struggle against. A flat character arc is centered around a character who does not change much if at all (unlike a positive, negative or infinite struggle character arc) but rather his/her actions change those around him/her and/or the world, for better or worse (usually for the better). The biggest problem for a flat character arc in an action setting is said character must constantly face external obstacles to overcome. As the character becomes more skilled/stronger and thus more easily able to overcome such external obstacles the threat those obstacles represent must be scaled ever upward accordingly.

The idea that a character has to have a psychological arc is such mid-to-late 20th century, Iowa Writer’s Workshop, Syd Field, Hollywood screenwriter pablum.

It’s a misreading of Joseph Campbell who himself has been overly deified.

You can just tell a story with rising action and a climax and people will respond to it if it’s funny or scary or makes them think or feel.

[Patrick Gerard]

While I love Superman I and II, there are many people - especially movie goers today- who would be bored to tears watching those movies.

I don’t think that’s a problem of plot so much as it is of editing.

A merciless editor could get all four Reeve movies into one at under 2 hours and 30 minutes and THAT’S a movie that would impress modern audiences.

He needs to save Lois 20 minutes in. And I don’t think that means dropping any of the prior scenes. Because then you wind up with boring scenes. Keep every scene in. Let no shot last more than 10 seconds.

Just had four movies worth of reels to somebody who knows how to do smash cuts. Let Tarantino edit it with the caveat that every scene from the first movie (but not every shot or frame) has to be in the final product. And then have Williams rescore it around the new rhythm.

[gregpersons]

My immediate thought is no if we're publishing him the way they did in the 40s. A monthly comic was available to everyone where the main purpose is to inspire or be cathartic. So I'll just take whatever current events happening and do a story involving Superman in it. The main attraction would be "What would Superman do in this situation"

This is a fantastic idea for an ongoing.

Superman comics should be almost like newspaper strips, or like the old radio serials. Shorter stories. Collected into trade/annual collections. It should be in it's own pocket universe. Golden Age Superman meets Present Day 'ripped from the headlines' type things. I love it.

I've been reading Bendis' Superman and haven't been feeling it for the most part, but I love Superman Smashes The Klan in a way I haven't loved a Superman story since All Star... that type of prestige comic at that quality can't be done monthly, but that direction of "Superman as a living myth in the real world" feels very right. That's a little bit of what Morrison started to do a little bit in the New 52 Action Comics reboot, but it didn't get a chance to really breathe.


Edit: The only problem with this idea is it requires editors and writers who know how to write satire, basically, because this is essentially an adventure story with satirical elements. You'd have to find someone like Charlie Brooker... not him exactly but you need a writer with something to say and the freedom to do it.

[marhawkman]

Yes, Superman is a difficult character to write. It didn't used to be this way because the character started off rather simple - the greatest strongman ever who fought against corruption and was the champion of the "every man". This at its core was the appeal of the character and why he became so popular - he was just some quasi powerful dude who beat up bad guys. As the years went on and his powers expanded exponentially, Superman's adventures evolved to the point he was really no longer the champion of the people but rather an omnipotent being who had to be written in weird, fantastical tales in order to be challenged. In the meantime, DC and Marvel created new characters or readjusted established ones to serve as the people's champion, making Superman irrelevant (or at the very least unnecessary) in that role. I think it's hard writing a character that is a moral compass of sorts for all other characters, while also so powerful that him battling villains like Toyman or Prankster seems ridiculous, and therefore those characters have more or less fallen by the wayside. Now Superman has to be written down or written up for any particular story, to the point he's portrayed inconsistently.

I think the key is remembering that it's no SUPERMAN's safety that is the most important part. The important part is the safety of others. Can Superman stop Toyman from killing a bunch of people? that is a more important question than whether Toyman kill Superman. I really wish more stories were written that way...

[LifeIsILL]

Let me guess that video complains about him being “overpowered” and “too perfect”? Not going to bother watching it if so.

Supes isn’t that hard to write given most of his “bad” stories aren’t “holy hell this is ****” but more so “this is dull and boring and I don’t care”. Despite being a more popular and successful character, I’d argue Spider-Man has had much longer stretches of just flat out AWFUL stories with a lot of the worst stories in comicdom coming from him. Supes doesn’t have anything near as bad as the Clone Saga, Sins Past, or One More Day. I can’t think of an entire decade where Supes was terrible, like how Spidey was during the 90s until JMS came on.

This. And don't forget Wolverine, he has to be up there with nonstop ridiculous nonsensical stories, and shouldn't he be one of the easiest characters to write?

What about Luke Cage? Nightwing? Green Arrow? Catwoman? Spider-Woman? Iron-Man for the past few years....nonstop crappy stories. And none of those guys have ridiculous powers.

And no I haven't watched OP's video yet, but I thought it was another video at first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y9RAXWQG1E

This one in particular pissed me off, the guy who made the video hasn't really read any Superman stories it seems (besides All-Star Superman).

[Johnny Thunders!]

I would argue that the so called overpowered 60's Superman is actually the first version of the character to regularly face physical challenges. He begins to lose his powers, face foes of equal or greater force, and he even out right begins to have 'Death of Superman" stories even enter the iconography. The Golden Age Superman is the most fantastic character in his early universe. Everyone else is basically human and despite occasionally losing consciousness or having the wind knocked out of him, Golden Age Superman has no physical challenges. The importance of surpassing limitations is essential in those issues. He chooses to operate on a human level but he gleefully overpowers the world around him. Superman in the Golden Age is essentially Bugs Bunny and everyone else is Elmer Fudd, minus the physical threat. Anyhow, I think Superman is hard to right because he works better as a fable. The weird fantastic stories actually carry more symbolic weight and meaning for me than many of those old mobster stories. I think with Superman, since the physical limitations are not a question, the moral and personal decisions become more important.

[Ascended]

The issue with Superman is that nobody wants to write Superman as a character. For a lot of people the idea is set that Superman is some saint, some religious icon, some folk hero and basically a character stuffed with symbolism and importance.But before Superman can be any of that, he has to be a character. The last time we saw that was in the Bruce Timm Superman the Animated Series and its Justice League continuation. That version of Superman was a dude you got to know. But nobody at DC seem to want to write Superman that way.

This is Clark's greatest problem. His legend has outgrown the character and now you can't write him at all because his image gets in the way. People want Clark to be this quasi-religious symbol and bitch when you write him as an actual character. But when you write him as a quasi-religion symbol people bitch because he's boring and flat.

[LifeIsILL]

I think it's hard writing a character that is a moral compass of sorts for all other characters, while also so powerful that him battling villains like Toyman or Prankster seems ridiculous, and therefore those characters have more or less fallen by the wayside. Now Superman has to be written down or written up for any particular story, to the point he's portrayed inconsistently.

Superman battling Toyman was one of the best recent Superman stories.



This was a lot more interesting than him going up against Doomsday or Gog for the 500th time. Remember that Superman vs Gog story and how well that turned out? Yeah.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

This is Clark's greatest problem. His legend has outgrown the character and now you can't write him at all because his image gets in the way. People want Clark to be this quasi-religious symbol and bitch when you write him as an actual character. But when you write him as a quasi-religion symbol people bitch because he's boring and flat.

Alan Moore wrote Clark as a character in the Jungle Line, in Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, and For the Man Who Has Everything. Moore's Superman was first and foremost a dude, he was some guy you could know and relate to.

But with rare exceptions we don't get much of that afterwards.This includes even acclaimed stuff like Mark Waid's Birthright and Morrison's All-Star Superman. Excellent stories but the Superman we get there is very much a mythic/folkloric/transcendent/iconic Superman. Waid and Morrison have too much reverence for the character. And again that's not such a bad thing, in fact it's a decent attitude if you are doing miniseries out-of-continuity takes (though Waid was I gather intended to be in-continuity but editorial changed).

Superman has to be a character readers can imagine hanging out with. I mean that's part of the reason why Silver Age Superman took off, because Superman's malicious pranks to Lois and other stuff and so on did make him relatable to comics readers of that day (for the wrong reasons). Superman wasn't a religious icon in the 40s and 50s, he was just some dude who had these powers, who could do what he wanted and often got away with it. In fact Superman was even seen by some as a bully (look at Kurtzman's MAD parody Superduperman).

[Ascended]

I think you're being unfair to All-Star. Yea, Clark was written as a raw, pure mythic archetype, but.....that was the point. That was Morrison doing his "modern day mythology" stuff. Check out his Action run and you'll find a character there.

It's an interesting balance, I think. There are huge expectations for Superman. People demand that he be bigger and better than life; he's gotta be space Jesus, and he *is* one of the most popular archetypes in the world (and was built from several older, highly popular archetypes as well). But at the same time you have to treat him as a character, or he just becomes a really boring sermon with really cool fight scenes.

Which is why Clark Kent is so important. Clark can be jealous and make mistakes and be selfish in ways Superman can't. Most importantly, Clark can lose. Clark is how you get to the Man in Superman.

I dunno about this "relatable" thing though. Maybe I just use the word differently, because I don't think Clark should be someone you can relate to. Peter Parker is supposed to be the guy you can relate to. Same goes for Kyle Rayner, and even Roy Harper. They're Everymen. That's not who Clark is. I agree with Morrison about Clark's life being "the real world cranked up to 11" We walk our dogs around the park, Clark walks his around the sun. We act a little differently at work than we do at home, Clark's almost literally two different people. That sort of "fantastical parallel" rings true to me. But that's more about shared, common experience than it is anything else. And even though Clark's not a perfect saint and has plenty of flaws and fun quirks in his character, he's not someone I can see myself reflected in, and I dont think he should be.

Superman isn't about being on our level, being "one of the guys." Superman is about us stepping up to his level; he's aspirational, and while we're supposed to sympathize and form emotional connections to him through his struggles and plights, ultimately he's supposed to be bigger than we are, better than we are. There's that quote, "Do good to others and every man can be a Superman." If Clark's just one of us, if he's a relatable Everyman, then we're already Supermen and have no need to try and be better, right?

But like I said, maybe I just use the world "relatable" differently.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Clark can be jealous and make mistakes and be selfish in ways Superman can't. Most importantly, Clark can lose. Clark is how you get to the Man in Superman.

I think that's a little simplistic to be honest. I prefer that episode in Superman TAS, "I need to be Clark Kent. I'd go crazy if I were Superman all the time". It's a quirk of personality, and a need to balance his life because of the character's identity issues. Superman needs to be Clark Kent for psychological reasons.

The thing about Superman is that he doesn't really have a stable identity. Had Krypton not exploded, he would be Kal-El, regular person in Krypton under its red sun, without any superpowers whatsoever (and I know there are retcons that make it that Kryptonians have inherent powers but the classic consensual take across adaptations is that kryptonians are regular people under the rays of Rao). So Kal-El isn't Superman or Clark Kent. On Earth and its yellow sun, and there alone, is he Superman, but that only happens because of a chance of biology and physics. He's Clark Kent because he was raised by his parents. So he's someone who's liminal, not one thing not entirely another. He isn't Kal-El, he's not Superman, he's not Clark Kent. There's a guy underneath that who navigates and shifts and balances these identities but isn't able to be entirely one figure all the time. That's what Alan Moore's take on Superman was about. In For The Man Who Has Everything, it's all about Krypton had to explode for there to be a Superman.

That issue with identity, is the main reason why Superman is so interesting and so relatable, far moreso than Batman. I mean people in real life today, in a large sense across the world have issues with identity and not really having a stable sense of self. We navigate different parts of who we are and where we come from. Whereas Batman is someone with a stable sense of identity. He's Bruce Wayne. He's a patrician rich kid. He can't be anyone else. He's spent all his life having people work for him or wait on him. Whether it's his butler Alfred, his employees at WayneTech, his sidekicks. So he's never had real issues with identity. I know some people make much of "Batman is the real guy, and Bruce is the mask" which is interesting for sure, but that still takes a stable identity as a given.

Superman isn't about being on our level, being "one of the guys." Superman is about us stepping up to his level; he's aspirational,

Maybe you don't intend this...but stuff like "us stepping up to his level;he's aspirational" is very Jesus-y and religious-inflected phraseology. At least for me it is.

I never felt the need to aspire to be Superman. And I don't think you should aspire to be a superhero or a hero, because it's not really a good thing for a world to need a hero. As that saying goes, "Unhappy the land that needs a hero". Think of how much more unhappy it has to be for you to need a superhero.

[manwhohaseverything]

I would argue that the so called overpowered 60's Superman is actually the first version of the character to regularly face physical challenges. He begins to lose his powers, face foes of equal or greater force, and he even out right begins to have 'Death of Superman" stories even enter the iconography. The Golden Age Superman is the most fantastic character in his early universe. Everyone else is basically human and despite occasionally losing consciousness or having the wind knocked out of him, Golden Age Superman has no physical challenges. The importance of surpassing limitations is essential in those issues. He chooses to operate on a human level but he gleefully overpowers the world around him. Superman in the Golden Age is essentially Bugs Bunny and everyone else is Elmer Fudd, minus the physical threat. Anyhow, I think Superman is hard to right because he works better as a fable. The weird fantastic stories actually carry more symbolic weight and meaning for me than many of those old mobster stories. I think with Superman, since the physical limitations are not a question, the moral and personal decisions become more important.

What about all the giant robots, monsters, not to mention hand full of villains goldenage guy fought? Not really, physical limitations can be as exciting. They just need to make it look interesting and build it up emotionally. The problem with superman is that his opponents don't get built up as much. They don't have pose the ideological challenges to superman.

[Ascended]

I think that's a little simplistic to be honest. I prefer that episode in Superman TAS, "I need to be Clark Kent. I'd go crazy if I were Superman all the time". It's a quirk of personality, and a need to balance his life because of the character's identity issues. Superman needs to be Clark Kent for psychological reasons.

That's all true, but I wasn't commenting on the dynamic between "Clark" and "Superman" or the give-and-take between his different lives. I'm just saying that Clark can express emotions and suffer losses and be more "human" that Superman typically is allowed to be.

Maybe you don't intend this...but stuff like "us stepping up to his level;he's aspirational" is very Jesus-y and religious-inflected phraseology. At least for me it is.

No, its intentional. I'm not one for a lot of heavy handed religious symbols in my Superman (or anywhere else really) and he doesn't/shouldn't be a morality play, but those parallels (Moses far more than Jesus) have been in the mix since forever. I don't need Clark with his arms out like he's nailed up on a cross or anything, but this has been a part of the character's DNA for a long, long time.

I never felt the need to aspire to be Superman. And I don't think you should aspire to be a superhero or a hero, because it's not really a good thing for a world to need a hero. As that saying goes, "Unhappy the land that needs a hero". Think of how much more unhappy it has to be for you to need a superhero.

And in a perfect world we wouldn't need a Superman. But neither the DCU nor the real world is anywhere close to perfect. People always ask "must there be a Superman?" and the answer is always yes. As Morrison said, Superman is the best idea humanity has ever had. Unless you think this is as good as we get, then Superman is still very much needed.

[SiegePerilous02]

But with rare exceptions we don't get much of that afterwards.This includes even acclaimed stuff like Mark Waid's Birthright and Morrison's All-Star Superman. Excellent stories but the Superman we get there is very much a mythic/folkloric/transcendent/iconic Superman. Waid and Morrison have too much reverence for the character. And again that's not such a bad thing, in fact it's a decent attitude if you are doing miniseries out-of-continuity takes (though Waid was I gather intended to be in-continuity but editorial changed).

That isn't entirely the case, at least not with stuff like All-Star #2. Morrison has a lot of reverence for the character and writes the whole series about how awesome he is, but still puts in stuff like Superman's self imposed fears and awkwardness potentially poisoning his relationship with Lois. And all his gas lighting pranks in the Silver Age come to bite him in the ass when he wants to reveal the identity for real, and Lois is just not having it (and you can't really blame her).

Dispenser of Truth wrote an excellent post about it on his blog. The whole series may have a seemingly perfect Superman on the surface, but it is actually very nuanced and nails the character flaws and neuroses incredibly well:

https://davidmann95.tumblr.com/post/...tar-superman-2