Is Batman the right person for Superman to trust if he goes bad?

[KingDragonlord]

That is taking a political position in itself. Or showing the political cowardice of DC editorial.

Why is it that people who claim about politics in comics never even see the enormous amount of politics in comics they happen to agree with?

If "we should help people" is a partisan position, then sure. Not everything is political. The stuff about taking down corporations is divisive and partisan. Beating up bad guys is not divisive. Nor is repelling alien invasions. He used to be more about having fun adventures and taking on colorful foes.

And that gets to your "political cowardice" remark. He's supposed to be fun. He has his roots in pulp penny dreadfuls and four color sci fi. From there he became a very colorful and fun character. But as the audience aged, they felt like they needed superheroes to be deeper to justify their guilty pleasure. But the best depth comes not from being topical or allegorical, but from being applicable

See Tolkien's notes on Applicability:

I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other resides in the purposed domination of the author.

That's what allegory is. Purposed domination. That's what Grant Morrison did. If you don't agree with his worldview, you can't invest nearly as easily in this new version of Superman.

[Carabas]

If "we should help people" is a partisan position, then sure. Not everything is political.

On the other hand, "We should help people, but not too much, not in a way that rocks the boat and upsets the status quo" IS a rightwing partisan postion. Well, used to be, they openly have moved on to "We shouldn't help people".

The stuff about taking down corporations is divisive and partisan. Beating up bad guys is not divisive. Nor is repelling alien invasions. He used to be more about having fun adventures and taking on colorful foes.

You know what? The whole "Not getting involved and letting corporations and dictators do as they please"? Pretty divisive and partisan too.

And that gets to your "political cowardice" remark. He's supposed to be fun. He has his roots in pulp penny dreadfuls and four color sci fi.

Maybe you should familiarise yourself a bit more with pulp penny dreadfuls and four color sci fi that was published back then before calling it non-political and safe fun.

From there he became a very colorful and fun character. But as the audience aged, they felt like they needed superheroes to be deeper to justify their guilty pleasure. But the best depth comes not from being topical or allegorical, but from being applicable

See Tolkien's notes on Applicability...

One writer doesn't get to rule all of fiction and decide these matters for all future stories.
I mean, he's pretty much saying "No More Mutants" there. No More Star Wars. No More New Gods or Darkseid. No More Buffy The Vampire Slayer. No More I'm estimating at two thirds of Doctor Who... All gone, no more allegories.

Tolkien had an extremy narrow-minded view on what constitutes good fiction.

Thats what allegory is. Purposed domination. Thats what Grant Morrison did. If you don't agree with his worldview, you can't invest as easily in this new version of Superman.

You need to read the entire quote instead of cherry-picking.

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

There shall be no allegories, however you may wish to call them.
And if you think that is what Grabt Morrison did I don't know what to tell you. Practically everything in his stories is an allegory for at least three different things when he really gets going. Did you really think Final Crisis was about some superheoes fighting Darkseid?
Wait, did you think Kirby's version of Darkseid was just some space dictator and not an allegory at all?

[KingDragonlord]

On the other hand, "We should help people, but not too much, not in a way that rocks the boat and upsets the status quo" IS a rightwing partisan postion. Well, used to be, they openly have moved on to "We shouldn't help people".

To get into an argument about what the "rightwing" does and does not believe, we'd either be treating all on the right as one or we'd be here all day. Suffice it to say that "We shouldn't help people" is unfair coming from people who are generous with everybody else's money (I'm only generous with my own, guess that makes me a bad person). Don't think you own the only position of moral high ground in these discussions. It does you no favors.

You know what? The whole "Not getting involved and letting corporations and dictators do as they please"? Pretty divisive and partisan too.

Letting them get away with stuff is one thing. But a being who is a power unto himself and who ignores any law inconvenient to the enforcement of his view, that's a whole different statement to make. That Superman, previously a beacon of good, is most right and most justified when he ignores human rules and does only what he thinks is best with power unearned and unchecked, that is over the line.

Maybe you should familiarise yourself a bit more with pulp penny dreadfuls and four color sci fi that was published back then before calling it non-political and safe fun.

They were schlock genre fiction. That was my point. They were called "dreadfuls" for a reason.

One writer doesn't get to rule all of fiction and decide these matters for all future stories.
I mean, he's pretty much saying "No More Mutants" there. No More Star Wars. No More New Gods or Darkseid. No More Buffy The Vampire Slayer. No More I'm estimating at two thirds of Doctor Who... All gone, no more allegories.

Mutants are applicable, not allegorical. When they were created they were just what they are. Stan Lee didn't have anything special in mind at first. They later have been applied to oppression of various minority groups. Sometimes cast in racial terms. Sometimes in terms of the LGBT movement. Their flexibility points to them transcending simple allegory. And if you think Star Wars is allegory, then its problematic. There is good and evil and its right to blow up the base with millions of evil guys in it. Star Wars is simple and it remains simple for the sake of being noncynical fun, a lesson the DC could stand to learn.

Tolkien had an extremy narrow-minded view on what constitutes good fiction.

Purposed domination is intellectual cowardice and artistic bankruptcy. There's a difference between stacking a world to represent your political views and reflecting the world as truly as you can perceive it and allowing discussion and interpretation of what you present. Life is always more complex than what a political worldview represents and a good artist (if we're saying comics need to be deep and artistic) allows for that. A good artist doesn't sic his hero on strawmen. Morrison usually does better than that but he failed here. We3 did this better.

You need to read the entire quote instead of cherry-picking.

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

I'm familiar with the whole quote. This wasn't cherry picking. This was just grabbing the first version of the quote I could find. I accept this version as well.

[Carabas]

To get into an argument about what the "rightwing" does and does not believe, we'd either be treating all on the right as one or we'd be here all day. Suffice it to say that "We shouldn't help people" is unfair coming from people who are generous with everybody else's money (I'm only generous with my own, guess that makes me a bad person). Don't think you own the only position of moral high ground in these discussions. It does you no favors.

I don't claim moral high ground. I say that stories often are very political, eve, if you don't notice it, and that this seems to happen a lot in stories that support an agenda the reader agrees with.

Letting them get away with stuff is one thing. But a being who is a power unto himself and who ignores any law inconvenient to the enforcement of his view, that's a whole different statement to make. That Superman, previously a beacon of good, is most right and most justified when he ignores human rules and does only what he thinks is best with power unearned and unchecked, that is over the line.

Well, that's just your version of it.
The way I see it, if you see great evil, and you have the power to make it better but refuse to do so, you're not a beacon of good.

They were schlock genre fiction. That was my point. They were called "dreadfuls" for a reason.

Eh... Penny dreadfuls were in the early 1800's in England.
Pulps were, at the time, not a genre. They were called that after the material the pages were made off. And they covered a great variaty of genrs, subjects, serious topis and all.
And, as you very well know, Superman started out as a true Social Justice Warrior.

Mutants are applicable, not allegorical. When they were created they were just what they are. Stan Lee didn't have anything special in mind at first.

Well, if Stan Lee's intentions for his almost canceled failed project counts as the true X-Men (until a better writer put some subtext into it) then so does Siegel & Shuster's violent thug Superman.

And if you think Star Wars is allegory, then its problematic. There is good and evil and its right to blow up the base with millions of evil guys in it. Star Wars is simple and it remains simple for the sake of being noncynical fun, a lesson the DC could stand to learn.

And all of the World War II imagery is just a coincidence.

Purposed domination is intellectual cowardice and artistic bankruptcy.

Purposed domination and application are not really literary terms, they aren't well-defined, they don't really appear anywhere online in this context other than in that particular inane quote from Tolkien. Metaphor not desireable in stories? It's what stories are for!

Morrison usually does better than that but he failed here. We3 did this better.

WE3 is a simple story that really only works on one level. I can see why you like it.

[KingDragonlord]

Well, that's just your version of it.
The way I see it, if you see great evil, and you have the power to make it better but refuse to do so, you're not a beacon of good.

Apprehending a criminal to turn over to the authorities is a good thing.

Manhandling a powerless human noncombatant with your superpowers makes you a bully.

Eh... Penny dreadfuls were in the early 1800's in England.
Pulps were, at the time, not a genre. They were called that after the material the pages were made off. And they covered a great variaty of genrs, subjects, serious topis and all.
And, as you very well know, Superman started out as a true Social Justice Warrior.

I said they were genre schlock, not a genre. They were schlock of various genres.

Well, if Stan Lee's intentions for his almost canceled failed project counts as the true X-Men (until a better writer put some subtext into it) then so does Siegel & Shuster's violent thug Superman.

The point is, they weren't built day one with a specific agenda. Authors have just seen ways to use the characters to tell various stories. They were never designed to be a specific allegory.

And all of the World War II imagery is just a coincidence.

If you think its WWII allegory, you're sorely mistaken. Lucas was doing a throwback to the serials of that era and so adopted some of the trappings to retain a similar feel. That's why the X-Wings maneuver like fighter planes instead of like spaceships.

Purposed domination and application are not really literary terms, they aren't well-defined, they don't really appear anywhere online in this context other than in that particular inane quote from Tolkien. Metaphor not desireable in stories? It's what stories are for!

Allegory is stacking the deck, turning a story into a direct metaphor for a specific situation and using the abstraction as an excuse to tweak the elements to favor your point of view (like having a convenient number of evil CEO's for Supermanchild to punch so he can stick it to the Man.)

WE3 is a simple story that really only works on one level. I can see why you like it.

Oh please. Superman is all surface. He's at best got Nolan's habit of Telling You Exactly What The Themes Are In Dialog. And We3 is at minimum both a character piece and a story about business going too far as well as a blending of genres. But I can see how you'd miss that.

[hero talk]

yes he is and I hope superman will always trust him

[Prime]

yes he is and I hope superman will always trust him

No. He shouldn't trust a borderline sociopathic man child. Honestly Wonder Woman is the best option.