Should Superman be weak to magic

[DochaDocha]

Zatanna can literally turn you into a frog just by talking about it in backwards speak. Explain that one.

I could argue this is generally undesirable in Superman comics. Not 100% undesirable, but this is something I'd rarely like to see.

[Alan2099]

If magic is the answer it's never a good one, which is why if it's ever used as an answer it's a cop-out. How do the powers work? I'd like some kind of explanation for them. Superman's powers are all nonsense but at least they're given a pseudoscientific explanation you can work with. I'd like everything at least to be a little bit logical.

A person who has the skills or inborn ability to channel the metaphysical and abstract forces on the universe by manipulating the primal energies of existence to the point of bending or altering reality and/or scientific law at certain points is no more or less nonsensical than "He can fly because the sun is yellow."

[daBronzeBomma]

A person who has the skills or inborn ability to channel the metaphysical and abstract forces on the universe by manipulating the primal energies of existence to the point of bending or altering reality and/or scientific law at certain points is no more or less nonsensical than "He can fly because the sun is yellow."

I'd buy the concept of a solar-powered airplane that can fly and the idea of photosynthesis in organisms other than plants (not to mention certain animals being cold-blooded and needing to be exposed to the sun to get going) and I'd buy the concept of humanoid aliens; put in imaginary blender and hit "puree": instant Superman.

That other stuff you just mentioned (reality-bending) is a LOT more nonsensical than Superman.

[Joe Acro]

I think it actually works the other way 'round. He should be vulnerable to magic, not weak to it. Spells should be able to affect him, mystical bolts should still be able to injure him, and enchanted items should be to work on him or against him. It's not a weakness--not like Kryptonite, that saps his strength. He just has no magical defenses. He'll take the same amount of damage as Martian Manhunter, Batman, Jimmy... doesn't matter. But given that he's Superman, he'd typically recover from a magical attack faster than most.

[marshal99]

Superman are invulnerable for the most part but there's only a couple of things that could hurt him - kryptonite , magic and Q-energy.

[Ascended]

Clark shouldnt be especially weak to magic. What, is his skin somehow thinner or more sensitive because that ball of fire came out of a wand and not a flamethrower? How does that make any sense?

He shouldnt be invulnerable to it or anything, but to say that some low-rent mage with minimal talent could defeat Superman because "magic"? No, that's the way of lazy writers.

I also think it depends on what type of magic you're talking about. If Zatanna conjures some ropes to bind him? Maybe they were conjured with magic but they're still just normal ropes and should be treated as such. A fireball from a wand? Still just fire (as someone else said) and not a threat. A blast of pure magical force designed to ignore and bypass most forms of defense? That should do some serious damage to Clark, just like it would J'onn or Hulk or anyone else. Shazam's transformational lightning? That seems to be pure magic in the shape of lightning and Im more than okay with that hurting the hell out of Clark.

Generally, I'd rather just leave magic out of it. Its too easily blurred and too easy a cop-out for lazy writers. I dont care much for dues ex machinas and magic provides too easy an out.

Regardless, Superman is already vulnerable to kryptonite, red sun radiation either drains his powers, cancels them out, or forces him to dip into his solar reserves. He has no particular protection from telepathy beyond an iron will and some mental defense training. Why people think he needs another weakness is beyond me.

[Ascended]

That other stuff you just mentioned (reality-bending) is a LOT more nonsensical than Superman.

We live in a world where it will occasionally rain spiders (Brazil and India at least so far) and the math has proven that there *could* be up to six additional sub-atomic dimensions folded up inside our own (Calabi-Yao manifold theory). The universe is expanding faster, rather than slowing down (which defies everything we know about physics) and there's (circumstantial) evidence that thought itself is a fundamental universal force, just like gravity and the electromagnetic spectrum.

Embrace the nonsensical.

[Lorendiac]

Mxyzptlk isn't strictly speaking magic, he's 5-D.

Now, I can understand the appeal of not wanting any magic- after all, every major super-hero at DC for years back in the Silver Age used to espouse that magic was superstitious nonsense, and you can explain a lot of so-called "magic" stuff at DC away with the "sufficiently advanced science" explanations.

I'm very surprised by your blanket statement about what all major Silver Age DC heroes used to say about magic. Can you cite some sources? I own a fair number of DC's black-and-white "Showcase" reprint volumes of Silver Age material, and I remember Superman tangling with authentic magic spells in more than one story in the late 50s/early 60s (as seen in his first four Showcase collections). Did he later (say, in the late 60s) go through a phase where he denied magic ever amounted to anything?

And what were some of the times when other Silver Age heroes were laughing at superstitious people who believed in "magic spells" and "curses" and so forth? I mean, not just Batman (or whoever) proving that a particular case was a hoax with a "scientific" explanation -- but instead a superhero actually making sweeping statements to the effect that all the stories people heard about magic were superstitious nonsense and nothing but? I'm drawing a blank on this -- but then, I haven't actually read every Silver Age story that DC ever produced, and I don't have a photographic memory for everything I might have read, say, eight or ten years ago.

For example, the New Gods? Simply an advanced alien race whose technology we don't understand. The Olympians and Egyptian pantheon? Same deal, except they've bought into their own propaganda.

You remind me of what I've heard before about Stan Lee's take on that sort of thing where Silver Age Marvel continuity was concerned. The story I've seen -- but only secondhand, not in any published interviews with Stan -- goes along the following lines.

Way back in the Silver Age, Stan Lee laid down the law for the benefit of his associates at the Bullpen. He said something along the following lines (paraphrased in my own words, working from rumors I've seen):

"The Asgardians are a bunch of nonhuman immigrants from some other corner of time and space who ended up on Earth, and were a) so incredibly powerful, and b) so susceptible to the power of human imaginations for some reason, that they ended up taking on the roles of the Norse Gods and Goddesses from the legends that were already springing up across Scandinavia. That was probably a few thousand years ago. After all this time, Thor and Loki and the others probably have just about hypnotized themselves into actually believing they are Supernatural Beings who were born and raised on Midgard -- or in nearby Asgard -- and who have been around practically since the Dawn of Time."

Somewhere I saw a claim that something along those general lines was actually inserted into a comic book published back around the 1960s, in order to have that excuse "on the record" in case Marvel was ever accused by angry parents of "promoting paganism" or something by having Thor, an Avenger, run around calling himself "The God of Thunder" all the time.

I don't know if that is actually true. And if it did happen, I don't know if they printed it as dialogue in one little story, or just as a one-paragraph-excuse buried in the middle of a letter column in case they ever needed to dust it off and use it to "defend themselves," or what!

I recall that Warren Ellis's scripts explicitly mentioned that version of the background of the Asgardians during his brief run on the Thor title in the mid-90s.

And I think a variation of it was referred to by Loki in a bitter speech in "Earth X" or one of its sequels in the "Earth X" version of the future of the Marvel Universe. (Been a long, long time since I actually read that material, so I'm vague on the details.)

However, I suspect that most of the writers who have followed in Stan's footsteps over the years as they worked with Thor (and/or other Asgardian characters) have either ignored this idea entirely (if they had ever heard of it in the first place?) or else blatantly contradicted it. Heck, if the Asgardians have really been doing what they do for a few thousand years, and using magic on each other at the drop of a hat, and taking all those painful blows to the head from their constant brawling, then Thor and his buddes may not even remember the truth themselves after all this time!

[Jim Kelly]

I do remember one Justice League story, where as they wrapped up the case, the science guys in the League posited the notion that maybe magic is just very advanced science. My memory is vague, but I'd guess this was in the Starbreaker trilogy, where Sargon the Sorceror was a guest star (JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA Nos. 96 - 98). But I could be wrong about that--and I don't want to send anyone on a wild goose chase.

Even in that situation, I think Superman would have to understand the science of the magic to combat it. If he just has an automatic immunity, then that would suggest he has specially adapted magic anti-bodies that can fight off its effects--which just makes things more and more ridiculous.

I wouldn't be against Superman using his powerful mind to figure out how magic works and then using strategies to defeat the magic. I think this is what he does 50% of the time when confronted with a magic adversary. With Mxy, Superman has deduced that if he can get the imp to say his own name backwards, then Mxyzptlk will be banished to the 5th dimension, and all his magic will be undone.

I don't understand how hypnotisim works, even though I've read explanations of how it works. The theory escapes my understanding. It seems to be scientific in nature--so a person could probably figure out how not to be hypnotized, if the knew how hypnotism works.

When I was reading the early Superman stories, I noticed that the stories are inconsistent in their use of hypnotism. Sometimes it seems that Superman can be hypnotized, sometimes he can't be hypnotized. Sometimes, Superman can even hypnotize others. If one applied consistency to those stories, you could argue that Superman at first didn't understand how hypnotism worked and he was vulnerable to it. He then figured out how the hypnotism worked and was able to use that knowledge to prevent himself from being hypnotized. And once having that knowledge, he taught himself how to hypnotize others.

I could see a resistance to magic working in the same way.

But to be honest, when I come across stories that treat magic in this way--as some kind of logical process, where the magic folk have to prepare spells, etc.--I find it makes the whole thing boring.

[Vanguard-01]

I could argue this is generally undesirable in Superman comics. Not 100% undesirable, but this is something I'd rarely like to see.

If Zatanna shows up in one of Clark's books--and she often does because she's usually his go-to magic helper--then there's always a chance she's going to turn someone into a frog. Short of saying you just never want Zatanna to appear in Superman's books, I don't see how you can really enforce this desire.

[Lorendiac]

Now, I can understand the appeal of not wanting any magic- after all, every major super-hero at DC for years back in the Silver Age used to espouse that magic was superstitious nonsense, and you can explain a lot of so-called "magic" stuff at DC away with the "sufficiently advanced science" explanations.

Something else occurs to me about your assertion that there was a time in the Silver Age when DC's major heroes tended to be extremely skeptical of "magic." Wonder Woman was a founding member of the Silver Age JLA, and her origin was loaded to the brim with magic. How could her teammates work alongside her every month, on the one hand, and then keep their faces straight while saying, in their solo features, that magic was superstitious nonsense? Imagine the following conversation in one of Aquaman's Silver Age stories, for instance (or "implicitly happening behind the scenes," if you prefer):

"Of course, Mera, I knew darn well that this scary 'ghost' couldn't possibly be real. There are no such things. All that talk about 'magic' and 'curses' is sheer tommyrot! So I was able to prove it was the result of a holographic projection, instead!"

"That's nice, dear."

"Now if you'll excuse me, I must run along to my monthly JLA meeting!"

"Be sure to give my regards to Wonder Woman, Arthur. She's the one who began as a clay statue of a little girl, and then was suddenly brought to life by some of the Greek gods, and always carries a magic golden lasso, right?"

"Yes, that's right! Why do you ask?"

"Oh . . . no reason. Have fun saving the world!"

[MindofShadow]

I like how they dealt with Thor's magic in the movies as advanced science.

It was mentioned like a couple times here and there.

There is no science explanation for...

- Loki's illusions
- Loki's ability to keep himself invisible
- Frigga's illusions
- Loki's telekinesis
- Mjoilnir. All aspects of Mjoilnir
- Thor's ability to control the weather
- Thor's ability to make armor appear out of mid-air


I mean come on, there is plenty of magic in Thor.

[Agent Z]

It was mentioned like a couple times here and there.

There is no science explanation for...

- Loki's illusions
- Loki's ability to keep himself invisible
- Frigga's illusions
- Loki's telekinesis
- Mjoilnir. All aspects of Mjoilnir
- Thor's ability to control the weather
- Thor's ability to make armor appear out of mid-air


I mean come on, there is plenty of magic in Thor.

Not to mention that the people who refer to it as science are those who have grown up in a world of logic and facts and are thus more likely to disbelieve the notion of magic.

[Lorendiac]

It was mentioned like a couple times here and there.

There is no science explanation for...

- Loki's illusions
- Loki's ability to keep himself invisible
- Frigga's illusions
- Loki's telekinesis
- Mjoilnir. All aspects of Mjoilnir
- Thor's ability to control the weather
- Thor's ability to make armor appear out of mid-air


I mean come on, there is plenty of magic in Thor.

I agree with you that just saying "it's incredibly advanced technology that looks like magic" is not the same thing as offering a "scientific explanation of how certain things are achieved." But just because detailed explanations are not offered, that does not mean they couldn't possibly be.

I mean, if we call Loki's illusions a matter of "having mastered some very sneaky spells," or "having been born with a freak magical talent which allows him to create incredibly convincing holograms without actually needing to use any projection equipment," that would sound "supernatural."

But if we say "he was born with a mutant gene which allows to him to psychically broadcast incredibly convincing illusions directly into the brain cells of the people who are looking in his general direction at the time," or if we say "his body subconsciously generates nanobots which fill the air around him and can coalesce and change color to create the appearance that he is standing twenty feet away from where he really is, or that he is wearing clothes other than his actual wardrobe, or whatever," then those things sound almost "scientific."

From Loki's point of view, though, it could all amount to the same thing: "I concentrate hard on how I want to look (including 'turning invisible' if need be), and poof! It happens just as I envisioned it! Fools everyone! What do I care about whether or not there's a rationale behind it which would satisfy the preconceptions of a Midgardian physicist about how the fundamental forces of the universe 'really work'?"

[Ascended]

How could her teammates work alongside her every month, on the one hand, and then keep their faces straight while saying, in their solo features, that magic was superstitious nonsense?

I imagine its a lot like Mr. Terrific's atheism. Sure, the Spectre claims to be the Wrath of god and he certainly has the power to back that claim up. But while some people (even most, in the DCU) might look at him and say "spiritual proof!" Micheal Holt looks at him and says "Empowered higher/other-dimensional being!" The fifth dimensional imps are not gods, they're just on a higher frequency than us and that can be said for a lot of things in the DCU. Who then is to say that the Spectre, Zauriel, the Greek gods, Wonder Woman, and Dead-Man dont all have similar (pseudo) scientific explanations behind them?

There's a difference between being a god and having god-like powers. There are cults in the DCU that are utterly convinced that Superman is a god and they worship him as such. But we all know Superman is just an alien with incredible powers. Sure, if you pray out loud to him he might hear you. If you're falling to your death and you scream out for mercy he might save you. He might cure your cancer (he has done it before) or find your lost child. He might even use some of his technology in the Fortress and make your corn fields plentiful again. We all know, as readers, that there's science behind this, but those things still sound like miracles to me.

Wonder Woman might believe she's the child of divinity but if the Greek gods were revealed to *just* be beings from a higher dimension (akin to the New Gods) then suddenly Diana isnt a creature of "magic" anymore, she's a creature with a definable and quantifiable scientific origin. And if the Greek gods happened to just buy into their own myths and start thinking of themselves as divine? Well, just because you believe something doesnt make it true.