Are we tired of Superman being treated narratively as larger-than-life?

[Dispenser Of Truth]

Been thinking about this lately in the wake of American Alien, which, while I feel it's overhyped, is definitely the best Superman comic in a long while and'll probably justly end up a perennial. And the main compliment seems to be "it treats him like a real character". That's such a simple, minor thing, but a more down-to-Earth Clark seems to really be the thing of the moment, between this, Pak's Action, and t-shirt Superman probably being the biggest thing to happen to the mythology in the comics in the last decade or so. But it's not quite as simple as that; we still want Superman to be great, some even want him to be perfect (hence some literally complaining when he beat up racists to save abducted innocents in Action #45 recently). And I think the real issue is something Al Ewing hit on the head in an interview when he was talking about Judge Dredd:

"I'm incredibly reverent of Dredd - but I'm a bit too reverent to let any of it leak onto the page, or the strip becomes a kind of hagiography, and that isn't the right tone for Dredd. That isn't the right tone for any character. I always hated it when the only way a writer could point out how great Superman was to have all the other characters talking about it like they'd just creamed themselves - it made poor old Supes seem like a colossal prick, and I'd cheer inside when some menace would wipe the smile off his overly handsome face, then groan when he triumphed. Which probably wasn't what the writer intended."

For all our grousing about Superman not being treated as a hero, I think we're all pretty tired of him being treated as a god, at least by the story itself, which was never really the case in even the older 50s/60s comics where he was as close to godly as he ever would be. For example, Kingdom Come has gone in the last few years from being talked about in the same light as Watchmen and DKR to being considered overrated and wrongheaded - a story that's entirely about Superman as a grand figure, even though he never really lives up to that in the story itself. Whereas All-Star Superman, for instance, only has people from the future or with knowledge of the same acknowledging him as a legendary being, while most in the present just seem to see him as a friendly flying helper that everybody loves and thinks we should be more like, with those who know fearing his death because of the security concern or because they personally love him, rather than God dying or whatever, while the man himself wrestles with all he hasn't accomplished and his emotional inability to talk with Lois the way they both need. Morrison's Action doesn't treat him as a deity either, other than a symbol of resistance to the disenfranchised of Metropolis - only the Legion, again from the future, treat him as more, and the one issue to deal with the idea of Superman as a living icon treats that version as the villain. We all do still want Superman to act like a humane person with problems and failings, even if not pushed so far.

I think we all still want Superman in the sky, loved by just about everyone and always doing what he can to help. But despite what we might think sometimes, I don't believe we really want one who also doesn't ever ever ever get angry or scared or confused, or swear when he's frustrated and screw when he meets someone he likes and drink when he's with friends and generally be able to have fun on his own time, who has flowers thrown at his feet everywhere he goes. Or as Charlotte Finn put it better in part of her piece "On the Subject of an Imperfect Superman":

"The notion behind Superman is that he’s meant to be inspirational/aspirational. Superman stories should make you want to be better, to lift your spirit...If Superman never gets angry, or never cries, or never makes mistakes, then he either has nothing to teach in those areas, or has entirely the wrong thing to teach. The wrong thing being swaddled in the notions of perfectionism and toxic masculinity, that I drowned in far too much as I was growing up. I literally had people tell me that 'real men do not show emotions like that,' and holy shit, the damage that caused.
If Superman never gets upset despite having a reason to get upset, what is he actually teaching us about how to handle it when we get sad, or upset? What can he teach us about how to recover from and fix our mistakes if he never makes any himself? Never mind that the notion of Superman never making a mistake means that if the reader disagrees with him, it’s the reader who is wrong, and when you’re talking about a guy who lives an existence where a huge part of his life is hidden from his coworkers, what message does *that* send?
I think a good Superman story can have Superman be angry, be upset or make a mistake if it shows Superman dealing with these things responsibly, because then it can teach us how to deal with these things responsibly as well."

[Sacred Knight]

DC appears to be. I'm not. I'm tired of the down to earth approach.

[Flash Gordon]

DC appears to be. I'm not. I'm tired of the down to earth approach.

Yeah, I agree.

[ManSinha]

I was brought up on a staple diet of Superman being able to break through the time barrier at will and juggle planets like the average person would a baseball - anything less than that - well ....
Kinda goes back to the thread that ManofSteel started about "My Superman"

[Jon Clark]

I certainly don't want a perfect Superman, but I want one who is better than most people. Superman should be the guy with the right motives even when he winds up doing the wrong thing.

His angst should come from the consequences of being the guy who does the right thing when everyone else isn't.

Teen Clark trying to keep up a relationship with Lana who can't understand having a boyfriend who isn't trying to get her between the sheets. Is he getting it somewhere else? Does he think she isn't sexy enough? Is he gay? .....
Teen Clark trying to explain to Jonathan that despite his respect for the man there is no way Clark can stand aside and let people die just to keep his existence a secret. Then dealing with Jonathan's disapproval or disappointment when they can't see eye-to-eye on the subject.
Clark trying to balance journalistic ethics about reporting on Superman against needing to keep his job.
Clark trying to find a voice as Superman that explains his values without seeming like he wants to impose them by force.
Superman taking an unpopular stand based on those values- maybe he's asked to stop a foe permanently by a public official and refuses or is asked to handle a military mission where he disagrees with the policy.

[ian0delond]

Are we tired of Superman being treated narratively as larger-than-life?

No.

Just have to compare the current versions of Superman on the shelves. From what I perceived.
Regular new52 depowered ends up not being a great idea.
American Alien with a modernized even with mixed reception still has a better one than the previous book.
Pre Flashpoint Superman in Lois and Clark, a version of the "perfect" Superman, have the better feedback.

Is their place in the larger than life scale the factor making those books better or not than the others ?
I don't think so. Just some have a better writting.
The piece describing why a perfect Superman is an awful thing you are quoting misses the point. Today there is a book most of us have read, showing THE PERFECT, LARGER THAN LIFE Superman. It is called All Star Superman. And by Krypton, you can see Superman crying, having emotions and all of the thing that "expert" is denying...

Superman is not just a ensemble of skill, a vague "perfect" personnality plus a costume. It is about the stories you tell. If you tell sh--- stories perfect or not your Superman is going to be bad.

If you do a Superman story just do with what the character is about. But do it good.





If I don't talk about the Superman trated as a god, because I am not a big fan of it. It is interesting to explore in non continuity. But as one of the main aspects of the regular Superman, something is missing.

[Myskin]

IMHO, the question in the title of this thread is ill-posed. It all depends on the approach and the context. There is not an "ideal" way to depict the character. As many cultural icons which survived more than 75 years of American history, the borders of the narrative universe of Superman have become more and more indefinite. Larger-than-life stories, as well as down-to-earth stories, could take place in it, and receive the same praise. It all depends on the coherence of the narration. The world of All-Star Superman is extremely coherent, the character is almost a semi-god, and it is one of the most successful stories ever. The world of American Alien is realistic without being depressing, and it is receiving an overwhelming response (seriously, I think that I've seen just one negative review, as far as I remember). Saying that one interpretation is "righter" than the other one doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that noir, Mike Hammer-like Batman is the right version of the character, while Bat-God Batman isn't.

Of course, it all depends on the format too. I am becoming more and more convinced that All-Star Superman couldn't exist in regular continuity, because - even if this detail is generally neglected - the whole universe of the story is unreal, even some of the characters' psychological reactions. It's basically Superman as reimagined by Winsor McCay. Personally speaking, I would surely read it on a regular basis, but I am rather sure that in the general overview of US comic books it wouldn't find its place. Maybe it would even get tiresome after a while, who knows.

As far as I am concerned, I am more and more convinced that sentences like "Superman should be this" are meaningless. I am open to a great variety of interpretations of character, including the depowered Superman of Truth. If the story is convincing, why shouldn't I accept it as the regular character? I don't care if he still has the power of flight. The problem with Truth is not that the character is wrong. The problem with Truth is that the story is, or has become, crappy.

Which IMHO explains a lot of discussions about Superman. Many commenters - including myself - keep on talking about what Superman should be, what his stories should be like, but that's simply because the stories are horrible (and they have been for decades). If the stories were better, we would talk about the stories, not about what Superman could potentially be like in a hypothetical future.

[Agent Z]

I certainly don't want a perfect Superman, but I want one who is better than most people. Superman should be the guy with the right motives even when he winds up doing the wrong thing.

His angst should come from the consequences of being the guy who does the right thing when everyone else isn't.

Teen Clark trying to keep up a relationship with Lana who can't understand having a boyfriend who isn't trying to get her between the sheets. Is he getting it somewhere else? Does he think she isn't sexy enough? Is he gay? .....
Teen Clark trying to explain to Jonathan that despite his respect for the man there is no way Clark can stand aside and let people die just to keep his existence a secret. Then dealing with Jonathan's disapproval or disappointment when they can't see eye-to-eye on the subject.
Clark trying to balance journalistic ethics about reporting on Superman against needing to keep his job.
Clark trying to find a voice as Superman that explains his values without seeming like he wants to impose them by force.
Superman taking an unpopular stand based on those values- maybe he's asked to stop a foe permanently by a public official and refuses or is asked to handle a military mission where he disagrees with the policy.

What you're suggesting is making him perfect. I mean, is it really realistic that he'd be the only guy in the universe not interested in Lana just for sex? Or that she couldn't imagine a guy who wasn't just interested in sex?

If humanity is so cynical and corrupt, it just makes Superman look like an idiot for caring.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I don't know if we are tired of a perfect Superman, but I think Superman works best when he's treated in mythic terms. Morrisons All Star and New 52 read like a fable to me, but so do For Tomorrow and Kingdom Come. That doesn't make him less human or relatable to me. In fact Superman works when he is more human than other characters in insane situations. I want his challenges or struggles to be monumental rather than mundane. He's always the human hook in cosmic situations, even when he is doing something miraculous. Superman can be both an evolved being and an everyman. We might be tired of ultra powerful Superman?

We killed him, we we've had him beat up in fist fights, we've carved off all the kid stuff, we've taken away his powers, we've married him, we've given him kids, taken away kids, we grounded him, we tore his cape, we introduced him to smarter, faster, and stronger heroes. All this stuff made him more human, but I don't know if those are my favorite stories. I have seen plenty of the Superman as a less than perfect character. Perfect Superman has been long gone, if he ever was?

Superman even at his most cosmic is still the most human character in the room. It's what makes him different than Miracle Man, the Silver Surfer, Dr. Manhattan, or Adam Warlock. To Superman, those guys have something to learn from Martha Kent.

Everytime I think Superman can only be in a certain type of story! I read one that changes my mind. He can be a trickster, a big sad mope, a baby sitter, a super genius,Mr. payback, a teenager with a flying dog, a football player, or football player impersonator, a pedestrian, an ultimate brawler...

[Jon Clark]

What you're suggesting is making him perfect. I mean, is it really realistic that he'd be the only guy in the universe not interested in Lana just for sex? Or that she couldn't imagine a guy who wasn't just interested in sex?

This is totally incomprehensible to me. I suggest having a character whose moral code isn't the lowest common denominator (I'm a teen therefore I must be having sex) and it's seen as making a character too unbelievable. Does every character out there have to be just as vain, petty, lustful, lazy ... as the average reader? What is the point of having a hero if you insist they not actually live up to their beliefs?

[SSJett]

DC appears to be. I'm not. I'm tired of the down to earth approach.

I agree as well.

[Agent Z]

This is totally incomprehensible to me. I suggest having a character whose moral code isn't the lowest common denominator (I'm a teen therefore I must be having sex) and it's seen as making a character too unbelievable. Does every character out there have to be just as vain, petty, lustful, lazy ... as the average reader? What is the point of having a hero if you insist they not actually live up to their beliefs?

You misunderstood me. I'm not against Clark having a strong moral code. But he shouldn't be the only one in the story with such a moral code. And characters shouldn't act like such a person was a myth until they met Clark.

[Agent Z]

This is totally incomprehensible to me. I suggest having a character whose moral code isn't the lowest common denominator (I'm a teen therefore I must be having sex) and it's seen as making a character too unbelievable. Does every character out there have to be just as vain, petty, lustful, lazy ... as the average reader? What is the point of having a hero if you insist they not actually live up to their beliefs?

You misunderstood me. I'm not against Clark having a strong moral code. But he shouldn't be the only one in the story with such a moral code. And characters shouldn't act like such a person was a myth until they met Clark.

[Jon Clark]

You misunderstood me. I'm not against Clark having a strong moral code. But he shouldn't be the only one in the story with such a moral code. And characters shouldn't act like such a person was a myth until they met Clark.

Sorry, your description of Clark as being "perfect" is what made me think you were saying that. I'd have no problem with other characters be good people either. But All I see when people attack the classic Superman is this sort of "But real people aren't that moral. Clark and Lois must be sleeping together. Superman can't have that many battles and still believe that killing isn't an option.".

[Ascended]

Superman should never be perfect. Where's the fun in that? The guy should screw up, get angry, get sad, fail despite his best efforts, and otherwise struggle with his life as much as any of us struggle with our own.

Its one of the reasons I like Pak's run. His Superman is the kind of guy who does the right thing even when the consequences will bite him in the ass. I always use Subterra, but its an example that works. Superman and Lana are in the midst of a delicate first contact with a new civilization, everything is going great and if they play their cards right the surface world will get access to Subterra's clean, renewable energy source, solving many of our problems in one swoop.

But that energy source is coming from the torture and mistreatment of animals. So Superman does the right thing and saves them, knowing that his actions are going to have huge ramifications.

What he did might not have been the smartest thing, but it was the right thing, and showcases how Superman can make mistakes without being treated as a naive farmboy or sub-intelligent not-so-average man.