Why does Superman get deconstructed?

Krypton is a real-life element that the planet was named after.

Problem #1 with this statement: Magog wasn't even like that at the onset. Remember, he was actually applauded in-story for killing the Joker after he went on another killing spree. It wasn't until people started following him as an example they became '90s Anti-Hero expies.

Problem #2: There are plenty of examples of superheroes who were willing to kill that stood in contrast to Superman's idealism. A recent example would be Wonder Woman in Infinite Crisis: she killed Maxwell Lord when it became clear that this was the most efficient way to break his mind control of Superman. While it's not exactly portrayed as positive (her callous disregard of taking a life was later used to emphasize that she'd "lost her humanity"), but the circumstances weren't so contrived that she seemed like a Complete Monster, either.

That's a very myopic perspective on the character. While, yes, there do exist stories like that, there are plenty of Superman stories where he has to make "hard choices" all the same. Superman has killed before (Phantom Zone criminals and Doomsday, for example), but in general, he doesn't believe he has that authority. (And he doesn't.)

As was said before, the problem of the Cardboard Prison is not the superheroes' fault, nor should it ever be. Even Real Life law enforcement (at least in the United States) do not have the authority to use excessive or lethal force in situations where it's not necessary—basic human rights and all that jazz. The problem is then compounded by the fact that most superheroes are not even legally-recognized law enforcement officers to begin with.

The fault lays not with Batman for not killing the Joker after his death toll reaches 500,000, but on the state for failing to properly deal with such a ridiculous threat in the first place. The same goes double for Superman, most of whose villains are not Ax-Crazy.

edited 23rd Jan '12 9:24:01 AM by KingZeal

One could write a dissertation on everything wrong with Kingdom Come's moral statement, but I'll try to be brief; the comic holds the innocent humanity Clark Kent as the unquestioned good of the universe. Magog is wrong because he doesn't abide by the no-killing policy of Clark, and his proteges are even wronger because they're much more blatant 90's ciphers. The public of the DC America are wrong because they embrace this new heroism, becoming sheep almost on the level of the Marvel Universe public. And Superman is wrong because he's given up onbeing Clark Kent, lost touch with his Midwestern notion of humanity, with the other members of the Justice League following his "he who fights monsters" path towards oblivion. In the end, Superman's redemption is symbolized by putting the Clark Kent glasses back on and returning to who he used to be— and the series never gives an adequate argument for WHY the ideal of Clark should be ideal.

I realize that superheroes are always on a slippery slope in regards to fascism; this is key to the concept, given how it's an intentional inversion of the Nietzcheian ideals the Nazis perverted. However, the problem with the slippery slope argument in many cases is that it assumes the person on the slope has no self-awareness and ability to control their descent. Magog didn't have to go off the rails after killing the Joker. Superman didn't have to try to destroy the UN after his "Gulag" catastrophically backfired. And to address your point about Infinite Crisis, Wonder Woman didn't have to become a Blood Knight after just killing Maxwell Lord. This is the assumption that too many superhero comic writers make, that one mistake sends an untarnishable icon down the path to oblivion. This is also why many writers try to downplay events like the aforementioned killing of Zod, because they can't handle the notion of Clark being tarnished.

Of course policemen shouldn't abuse their power, but they are sanctioned to use lethal force in extreme situations. Any time the Joker goes on a rampage, it constitutes an extreme situation. The culpability of the Gotham City Police Department and Arkham Asylum is moot, because they're not the protagonist. Batman's the hero, and he's thus the only one who can stop the Joker. That he continually dumps the guy in prison/asylum rather than killing him is the problem; in fact, isn't his continual homo-erotic "dance" with the Joker much of what eggs him on to do worse and worse things?

Ultimately, the reason why Superman needs these frequent deconstructions is because he's an unattainable ideal. His level of goodness, the kind that never uses more force than necessary, never has to get his hands dirty, never thinks an inappropriate thought about a woman, and always makes the right decision, is impossible for anyone to achieve. Characters can be complex and make mistakes while still being admirable; it's the idea that there's a role model who always has the right answer to every situation that's the problem.

Well, for one thing, the point to Kingdom Come was that superheroes should not put themselves above humanity. The concept of costumes and alternate identities was discarded in the resolution of the book as basically a means of separating the "Man" from the "Superman". The concept of the book is that superheroes had become a culture and hierarchy all its own rather than being part of humanity and working on the overall problems that plague humanity.

This has some justification in tropes such as Reed Richards Is Useless, which I've said before is something I feel is a weed choking the life out of the comic book industry. Kingdom Come ends with Clark, Bruce and Diana assuming the roles of the three "core" occupations that every society will require, regardless of technological level or sophistication (farmer, doctor and teacher, respectively). They abandon their costumes and alter egos and focus on using their abilties/gifts/resources in order to improve the world at the base level, rather than merely acting as judges and juries. I do have some problems with this (there's no reason why every surviving superhuman should follow this philosophy, so crime-fighting is bound to continue to be a problem), but the idea is interesting in execution.

And no, merely going on a killing spree would not make the Joker fair game for termination any more than being a bomb-setting terrorist makes anyone fair game in real life...especially if they are on American soil. People have rights, regardless of how horrible they are, and police officers can NOT just decide to take out someone if there's any indication that there's a non-violent means to take them down. In fact, using lethal force as a cop tends to result in a ton of psych evaluations, paperwork, and other headaches which may even include being let go from the force. Having a badge doesn't mean you can just shoot someone you think deserves it, unless pulling the trigger will immediately save a life. In other words, putting a bullet in the Joker's head just because he's killed a few dozen people can't happen. But, putting a bullet in his head while he's holding a gun to a little girl's head is another story. This is even true in the military. There's two little things called "Rules of Engagement" and "Escalation of Force".

And Batman being the "protagonist" is a moot point. Since you're trying to criticize comic books from a real-world perspective, that doesn't work, since in Real Life every person alive is the "protagonist". Batman is still not a recognized law enforcement agent, so he has no business killing anyone—period. What should be questioned here is why Gotham hasn't taken steps to incorporate the Dark Knight into the justice system, seeing as how they are horribly ineffectual without him and why they can't keep a criminal locked up in the first place. Everyone in Gotham should feel goddamn blessed that they have a guy like Batman running around who's willing to solve these problems without resulting to lethal force, but at the same time furious that they have elected officials who can't hold up their end of the bargain.

Lastly, you're again using a very, very narrow outlook on Superman. Superman is quite often not shown as "perfect" or immune to the physical urges of most men. The best stories involving the character tend to involve stating why he doesn't give in to a particular urge instead of just claiming that he's above it all. Not to mention that, for most of his publication, Superman has always had his eyes set on a particular woman. If anything, you should have more issue with the way that Batman was portrayed until recently, whereupon DC actually implied that he was either a virgin or had "tried sex once just to see what it was like, and then focused his energy on fighting crime". Personally, I find that to be even more ridiculous, considering that half of Batman's rogues gallery involves Unresolved Sexual Tension.

edited 24th Jan '12 6:52:24 AM by KingZeal

Not really related but what do you guys think about this parody/commentary of the Death of Superman storyline?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PlwDbSYicM

edited 20th Feb '12 3:18:52 PM by zam

Hah, that was hilarious! And surprisingly correct, for the most part. Though:

-Doomsday's origins weren't revealed until years later. For a while it was just- a monster that sprung out of the ground. No explanation given. That was odd. And yeah, Marvel comics made fun of him for being a Hulk rip-off.

-Green Lantern went insane AFTER the Return of Superman. Heck he was there helping him fight the Cyborg!

-Most importantly, Superman's return didn't ruin death in comics. Many other characters had already come back from the dead by this point (most infamously the X-Men's Jean Grey.) His was just the most publicized one. And I don't think most comics fans actually believed he would stay dead. Heck, I gave it a year before he would be back, and I was almost right. It was the NON-comics fans -most regular people- who heard of this and thought DC was actually killing off such an iconic character. That's why the storyline sold so much, because many non-fans thought this was going to be a comic of historical value like Action Comics #1 and were later pissed to find it was just a stunt.

The one effect that Superman's death DID have was that it made DC decide to have have tragic things happen to their main heroes in huge storyarcs to publicize them: It inspired "Knightfall" (AKA Batman getting his back broken by Bane) and yes, Green Lantern going mad (though that one really backfired when most people hated how it ruined the Green Lantern corps and the Guardians.)

I even heard a rumor that Mark Millar suggested a similar "Tragedy Arc" for wonder Woman, except in her case it would be- rape. But that DC didn't go for it. Now I don't know if this is true or just someone -possibly Millar himself- trolling the fans.

Yeah, "But you're dead!" "I got better" and variations thereof, had been a running joke in Claremont's X-Men since the early '80's.

Honestly, I'd say it's because Batman is perhaps too easy to deconstruct. What does motivate an alien demigod, capable of destroying any man or army on the planet, whose only real weakness is not being in multiple places at once, to play boyscout in one American city?

Batman is mostly a normal person, being rich is really as different as it gets. And he has taken his parent's death a little too hard. If they were killed by a drunk would he be in a costume and own a super-car to stop drunk driving? If a building collapsed on them would he be Building-Code-Safetyman? Shit happens Bruce Wayne, why you are declaring a goddamn war on it?

Superman being an alien makes him mysterious. Batman being human makes him functionally insane.

And no, merely going on a killing spree would not make the Joker fair game for termination any more than being a bomb-setting terrorist makes anyone fair game in real life...especially if they are on American soil.

But current American policy is that terrorists are fair game - even if they are on American soil. Thanks to the latest defence appropriations act, it would now be legal for the government to kill an American citizen, on American soil, if the government has evidence that they are a terrorist. It hasn't been done yet - but they have killed both foreign and American citizens overseas. In the case of the American citizen, he was Al Qaeda's propagandist - they had no proof he had directly killed anyone.

In the Marvel or DC universes, which have a lot more horrific events than our own, it's hard to see why killing a supervillain with a high body count would even be particularly controversial. (Actually, given that the Joker doesn't have powers or anything, it shouldn't be that difficult for the government to take him out by drone strike...). But comic books are driven by plotting requirements, not by realism.

police officers can NOT just decide to take out someone if there's any indication that there's a non-violent means to take them down.

Also not true in practice. Any number of writers who focus on American police policy and practice can give you a list of people who have been gunned down by cops despite not even being armed or violent, just because the cop felt like they might be a threat. This isn't my area of expertise, but just general political reading has made me aware of more than a few cases. It is very rare - nigh non-existent - for cops to receive prison time for killing someone: they can always claim they feared for their life, and the claim with generally be accepted, regardless of how implausible it is.

The point with Batman or Superman is that they're not in the police or the military. They're accountable to nobody but themselves, which means they need to hold themselves to a higher standard in order to avoid becoming dangers to the society in whose interests they claim to be acting. That means handing criminals over to the justice system rather than simply executing them. However, that doesn't explain their unwillingness to kill extending even to situations where a supervillain is putting another person - or heck, the entire world - in jeopardy; in that situation most people would agree deadly force is warranted.

edited 22nd Feb '12 8:00:03 PM by WarriorEowyn

Interesting information—and frightening if accurate. So thanks for that.

But one of the major problems with comic book universe (even Batman's) is how easy it is to falsify everything. Shapeshifters, clones, alternate-universes, demonic possession, etc. In a fictional universe like DC, it would arguably be even harder to play judge, jury and executioner. How would said superhero know if the person in front of them really did do that killing spree? Granted, in the Joker's case, it's pretty cut and dry. But, remember Return Of The Joker? Yeah, that's a damn good argument why you shouldn't just kill him.

As for situations where the world or a life is immediately at stake? Now there I agree wholeheartedly and always have.

edited 21st Feb '12 7:35:25 AM by KingZeal

It depends on which version of Batman you're getting. He has been portrayed as having his parents' murder drive him borderline crazy, but it's just as often (actually, I think more often) been that his parents' murder was more of a wake-up call for him.

Superman has, thankfully, been pretty consistently been portrayed as altruistic, if you forget Frank Miller's portrayal of him in Dark Knight Strikes Back and ASBAR as a kind of proprietary, would-be benevolent dictator.

There's a much simpler meta-reason why Batman doesn't kill the Joker or any of his other Complete Monster enemies. Because it doesn't matter. Batman could go off the deep end, paint three walls with the Joker's brains, grind the leftovers into kibble, mail the kibble to thirteen different timezones, drop the entire bloody planet into a black hole, reduce the black hole to its component quarks and scatter them across five dimensions, then destroy that entire sodding branch of reality... and the nanosecond the next writer on the series wanted an 'iconic' villain, *pop*, Heeeere's Uncle Joker!

That being the case, there's not even the slightest point in having Batman kill the Joker, in cold blood or otherwise. Batman retains the moral high ground, and DC doesn't have to put up with the embarrassment of having to quietly ignore the Joker's spectacular death in hopes that no-one remembers.

More on-topic, Superman gets deconstructed for a number of reasons; the main one, of course, is because writers (speaking as a writer myself) are lazy, cynical bastards. Superman is the biggest, easiest target available for superheroic deconstruction, far and away the most recognizable cape in existence, and arguably one of the, if not the most idealistic. It's an irresistable combination. Instant, effortless recognizability, coupled with an idealism that sets our cynical teeth on edge, makes for a target too tempting to resist.

Another reason not to kill people like The Joker: when you do so, yes you stop him from doing more bad things, but what if you ever need him? Suppose a plague that can only be cured by the chemicals in his Joker Venom (possibly created by someone like The Scarecrow) starts killing millions of people? Except the only person who knew the exact formula was The Joker, and you just killed/lobotomized him. Oops.

As for Superman not spending all his time fixing the world's problems, this has been tackled (perhaps best of all with Astro City's Superman equivalent, The Samaritan) but the simplest solution would be, not giving him godlike levels of power. Does superman REALLY need to be able to sense anything bad on Earth, fast enough to be there to help before anyone dies, powerful enough to even plug volcanoes, and tireless so that he can't even stop to rest? No. He only needs to be strong enough to fight the most powerful villains in Dc (who themselves do NOT need to be godlike to be interesting) and then you can just use him as any other hero.

No no no. That is, to me, the wrong way to fix Superman. Making him just like everybody else ruins what I personally like most about the character.

The problem is not bringing Superman down to the level of every other superhero, but basically not using him as the character he was being pushed as for a long time—the guy who's better than everybody at everything. He's faster, stronger, tougher, and can do anything you can better. The problem this poses is that he's not able to be written in a conventional story, and putting him on a team tends to mean that someone's going to be Aquamanned.

But that's always been the appeal of Superman: he's the character who will do anything and everything. On Monday, he'll visit the White House for lunch with the President. On Tuesday, he'll single-handedly repel an alien invasion. On Wednesday, he counsels a suicidal teenager. On Thursday, he rescues a cat from a tree. On Friday, he stops an earthquake in the Keys.

It baffles me how writers can't figure how to write someone that powerful. Superman is a walking transhumanist story. He's the ultimate exploration of how the human condition would change if we were not bound by our current limits.

edited 24th Feb '12 8:02:49 AM by KingZeal

Because, if your main character can accomplish any physical task with ease, than you're either gonna have a lot of boring adventures that are quickly resolved, or you're gonna have to focus on them doing things other than physical tasks, but you can only do that for so long before people start wondering what's the point of having the superpowers if they're not gonna play a more prominent role in the story.

I recommend taking a look at Brandon Sanderson's Second Law for a more detailed explanation.

I disagree, simply because I'm a fan of the "Cosmic" scale stories.

The problem with Superman is that he's boring if you're trying to give him a street-level threat. Yeah, Jonny-purse-snatcher is gonna have a hard time fighting Superman while he might at least get a lucky punch on Batman. But, that's my entire point: Superman has always suffered from lackluster antagonists or antagonists which can't provide him a consistent challenge. Even with Lex Luthor, the problem eventually becomes a Brains Evil, Brawn Good story, since Lex is "the smartest man on Earth" and his brain is literally his only weapon against Superman. No matter how clever or smart we know Superman is, he has to be dumber than Lex and his Brawn has to be weak enough to be overcome with science the mundane reader can understand.

I read through a lot of Silver And Bronze Age Superman stories a while back the most interesting ones were always the ones about Superman fighting against some sort of surreal/otherworldly threat. Whether it's Brainiac, Starro, or an entire invasion fleet, the challenge with Superman was always about how can one man solve such a big problem. Even at Superman's power level, he can't be everywhere, he can't see everything, and he can't do everything. That's not a hard thing to explore.

For example, there was more modern one story (can't remember when, but I think late 90s) where Superman had to repel an attack mostly by himself and he spent several stories trying to repulse the invaders. Superman returns to Earth with a hero's welcome, but is humbled by the fact that one of the invading ships crashed into a home, killing the occupants. Superman considers that even though he's happy that he saved the world, he was unable to save one family and that he can always do better.

Seriously, it's not hard to write this.

edited 24th Feb '12 10:01:01 AM by KingZeal

But that's the exact opposite of what you were saying before. You said that the idea behind Superman is that he's better than everyone at everything (which, if you go back to the original Golden Age comics, is pretty darn accurate); using that premise, it doesn't matter how large you make the threat, Superman should still be able to to whup it handily with no complications.

That's not what I was insinuating. When I said "better than you", I meant humanity in general. In other words, Superman being (one of) the most powerful superheroes on Earth shouldn't be a problem. Most of the problem with how many writers like to "deconstruct" Superman is that they try to create humanity in him that doesn't need to be there. They add both physical and psychological weaknesses for him to overcome that weren't there before; that isn't in itself a bad thing, but they tend to give him problems in an tempt to be "relatable."

I'm not very read up on DC stuff, but do they have a cosmic group of comics like Marvel does? And, if so, wouldn't the easiest way to write him be to move him to space away from Earth? That would give him cosmic level threats to fight, and keep him away from the lower level super-heroes on Earth, giving them a chance to shine.

That being said, I have never picked up a DC comic

The Green Lantern Corps and characters associated with them make up the bulk of "Cosmic DC". However, DC's cosmic mythos are nowhere near as developed as Marvel's.

There's also the New Gods, but again, they hardly ever used (well.)

Note: I'm not saying you can't have stories with cosmic-level characters. The problem is, that's high above the level of what superheroes work in. A character like say, the Silver Surfer, IS supposed to be godlike. And should have appropriate powers and responsibilities.

But Superman? He's supposed to be Earth's greatest hero, not the universe's. He's supposed to fight supervillains *part of the time* and be Clark Kent the rest. Its hard to justify that when you combine godlike powers with unyielding morality, and brings up questions such as, "why doesn't Superman stop all wars?" The answer is usually "because he doesn't have the right to" or something equally morally sticky. I'd rather just give him limits.

Also, let's not forget that Superman is NOT the best at everything in he DC universe. The Flash is faster. Captain Marvel is stronger (yes he is- The Power of Zeus boosts his other powers, which already are a match for Superman's, but people today conveniently forget that.) And then you have to apply the SAME questions about why Flash and Captain Marvel (and Green Lantern etc.) don't spend every waking second fixing the world already. No, its better to just keep DC's heroes at a "Marvel Comics" level- powerful but not world-shakers.

Ah, I didn't mean that he was actually better than everyone. I was mostly using hyperbole in that regard. But, in terms of humanity? Yeah...he's superior to even most of our greatest technological feats.

You make a good point on the "he's Earth's greatest champion" thing. That is something I haven't thought about...but it's a good point to bring up.

However, I disagree on the "why doesn't Superman end all wars" question, because that's something I have thought about: basically, it's a Perfect Solution Fallacy. The implication I get (as a long-time Supes fan) is that Superman does tend to step in and mediate conflict when shit's really about to get real in this bitch. He'll stop the power-mad dictator from shooting nukes, or stop Tyrannistan (or whatever is the DC equivalent of Latveria) from marching into mainland China, but he's not going to get involved in disputes between one power regime or another because:

1. He can't be everywhere at once (again, that's his greatest flaw) so he won't always be around to enforce the change he creates. Sure, he deposed Dr. Dictator today, but what's stopping General Dick Tater from coming in and slowly doing the same thing? Superman isn't a political scientist—how would he know the first damn thing about getting an impoverished, enslaved country back on its feet? The best he can do is help where he can and hope everybody else can sort shit out.

2. He won't be around forever. See problem #1, except the problem continues after he's dead. At some point, we will have to solve our own problems rather than rely on Alien Jesus Moses to do it for us.

So yeah, I don't agree with that problem. I think it's an illusion fans dream up because a fictional world isn't perfect.

One problem I have with such an uber-powerful version of Superman is that it makes Metropolis kinda pointless. If he can zip all over the world attending to the worst crimes being committed at the time, why spend so much of his time in one particular city fighting garden variety criminals and using his reporter identity to find out about disasters as they happen?

...Because it would be helpful?

I mean, seriously. The guy is a boy scout, and I'm not saying that ironically or negatively. He's someone who will help an old lady cross the street or help hail a taxi just because it would brighten someone's day.

But if he can zip across a continent in a matter of seconds and hear trouble happening from a thousand miles away, why focus so much of his time on one particular city? Most of the time there's gonna be somewhere else that needs his help a whole lot more.

edited 25th Feb '12 3:30:58 AM by RavenWilder

Competent writers usually imply that while he focuses on Metropolis more than other places, he does do what he can to help the world at large.