Should we really Beware the Superman?

You pretty much can't as Superman is one of the noblest heroes in fiction even if he has his 'flaws', he still remains pretty noble hero who saves people because he can.

The biggest complaint you can make about Superman is that he's a Boring Invincible Hero......

Which is only bad from a meta perspective.

As I said, Beware the Superman is different from piss him off everyday, but you rarely see that acknowledged properly.

That's because it's a slippery slope. Humans have a very bad track record of not being able to handle things that deserve a tiny bit of fear and/or respect.

In the Classical Antiquity era, it was a bit more commonplace to fear nigh-omnipotent beings and to "know your place" amongst them. But these days, humans have become egotistical control freaks. We introduced concepts like "freedom" and "unalienable rights", and we've kind of grown attached to them.

So by Bewaring the Superman we are indirectly rebelling against a higher power?

And to be honest, you'd be surprised how stupid/foolhardy people can be. After all, Doug Roth questioned Dr. Manhattan or the closest thing to God in universe. He was the trigger to make Manhattan alienated from humanity. Sure, it was all a plot, but it worked because he was human. Ergo, we should Beware the Superman because he/she is human or human enough and therefore fallible.

edited 17th Aug '11 11:18:27 AM by EnglishMajor

Like I said, since the concepts of freedom and rights have become popular, most people aren't very keen on suddenly being told we're not equals after all.

But really, the existence of a "superhero", assuming these superheroes remain active for decades (like in the Big Two universes, where superheroes have been active since at least World War Two, if not earlier) means that there's something normal law-enforcement/military is not adequate at doing. If you need Superman to save the world from Brainiac, then Superman is more powerful than the entire planet's armed resistance combined. You could make an argument against this if, say, the world was able to artificially produce superbeings with Superman's abilities after a few years, but no—superheroes have effectively been the world's last line of defense for three-quarters of a century.

So yeah, if you need to kiss Superman's ass, then you kiss his ass. Yeah, it sucks for you, but what can you do about it?

The closest analogue to superheroes we can find in real life are feudal knights. The fate of the kingdom relies upon their talents and resources, and if we accidentally piss him off, then we're pretty much screwed.

Resurrecting this out of curiosity about just how "super" someone should be so as to warrant anxiety in the first place; and more importantly, just how are they to remain on that level compared to the people at large. The way I see it, in order for the trope to make sense, the power in question should be both inherently physical in nature, independent on social bonds and relationships, and all but unattainable in any practical way. What bugs me is just how many physics defying contrivances are needed for that to happen in fiction, let alone in reality.

Superman himself is a good example - the guy started out as your average heavy worlder, strong enough to be impressive, but hardly a walking nuke by himself. Indeed, less than a decade into his existence, actual nukes showed just how powerful humanity had already become. Ever since, any plot requiring him and his ilk, be it cape or crook, to be genuinely unstoppable forces, has had to considerably inflate their abilities, all while nerfing human weaponry to blatantly unrealistic lows.

To expand on the metaphor, feudal knights were frequently recruited off the local populace, and with all their training and expensive equipment were indispensable in quickly dispatching foreign raids, but were otherwise vulnerable to internal dissent. Further East, it's rather telling that the nation most noted for its rigid authoritarian Samurai aristocracy, is also the one famous for underhanded commoner assassins giving them the deep six.

As for ancient gods, from which the idea could be argued to originate - well, the notions of absolute deference came about due to the undeniable folly of trying to fight against nature itself. Arguing with a lightning bolt is hardly a rational proposition even now, let alone ages ago. To contrast, however, human leaders were nigh-universally regarded as constantly sitting under the Sword of Damocles, or tenuously holding an easily revoked Mandate of Heaven - a fact any revolution can demonstrate.

In short, under any rational circumstances, I'm not sure if a Superman, in both the physical and the administrative sense, could even last long enough to ever need worrying about. That the man himself has become a frequent fulcrum of such plots, is a severe deterioration, perhaps even inversion, of his original character. So what's new, right? Focusing on the original question - guys like the Green Lanterns are perfect examples of what happens when ordinary people get superpowers - they use them for good. I see nothing wrong with that.

edited 7th Nov '14 2:34:57 PM by indiana404

Here's something to consider:

One of the main reasons tyrants come about is because of greed: they use their position to increase their own wealth and power, and jealously guard against anyone who might try to usurp or restrain them. But, for a sufficiently godlike superhero, that wouldn't really be an issue. Either they can effortlessly create anything they want using their own power (ala Green Lantern), or they can easily perform tasks that will let them buy anything they could possibly want (ala Superman squeezing coal to create diamonds). And since their powers are often inherent to who they are, they don't have to worry about anyone who's not a super being or mad scientist taking their power away.

So it seems to me that, if we really had these sorts of all-powerful supermen in our world, they wouldn't necessarily have a motive for trying to rule over the common folk: we pose no threat to them, and we can't do anything for them that they can't do better and quicker themselves.

Pretty much, yeah. Organized hierarchies usually come about from having to deal with limited resources; or, in colonial times, the assimilation of new ones before the competition can tip the balance of power. Thus, a metahuman need only be concerned with humans if the powers in question are severely limited and inimitable. It's kinda like how colonizing the Southern Hemisphere was a rat race of unmitigated aggression, since dry land isn't a resource easy to manufacture; but nuclear power became a universal standard for energy production mere decades after its discovery - as knowledge of it could be shared freely, and there are whole mountains of isotopes to trade and use.

Which brings me to the point - humans are pretty good at mass production; and in a world with rational laws of physics, any personal aptitude can be analysed and eventually replicated. A man could be born more powerful than a locomotive, but whatever gives him that power won't be a black box for long. And the locomotive itself can be made more powerful almost indefinitely.

In a literary sense, the presence of uniquely empowered individuals is a genre necessity for superhero comics and urban fantasy novels, but it's not something that can be leaned on for anything more serious - at best, it's too fantastic, and when dealing with themes of tyranny it crosses into a cosmic horror story. Same goes for proclaiming excuses as to why more people shouldn't have such abilities, at least in the low-voltage range. A mild healing factor alone would revolutionize medicine as we know it and save countless lives.

By the way, what spurred me into this discussion weren't actually superhero comics per se, but mostly those urban fantasy stories a bit too eager to put down the puny muggles. Harry Potter was cringe-worthy enough for having come up with the word in general, but an even more blatant example would be not just Bella the character, but Stephenie Meyer the author explicitly admitting to being "anti-human"... while severely inflating the non-human species in question well beyond their traditional capacity. So, you can see why I consider the premise of such tropes itself to be rather tautological and self-serving.

edited 7th Nov '14 11:14:28 PM by indiana404

That's true in theory. However, human beings have had thousands of years to observe hurricanes and figure out how they work, but we're still nowhere close to controlling them or rivalling their sort of power. The same might go for human efforts to control/replicate superpowers.

Technically, we can't rival the scale of such phenomena, but the natural mechanisms involved are hardly an enigma. Consequently, any power compact enough to imbue a single humanoid being would quickly fall within the parameters of human understanding; at the very least for a feasible defense to be mounted when needed. Laws of physics are surprisingly egalitarian in that regard. From then on, it'd be at worst a race for the power-granting resource, rather than anxiety about the current wielder, and at best a transhuman advent and a medical miracle to dwarf anything seen so far.

When you think about it, even mythical heroes were mortal enough against human weaponry, while the purported abilities of mystics and religious figures were connected to understanding the then-considered laws of nature, rather than being something personally inherent. Again, this is a very egalitarian and enlightened view of how "superpowers" could be attained by just about anyone given the proper knowledge and mindset. Even for most middle-weight superheroes, there's hardly a claim that their powers make them special, as opposed to their willingness to use them for the good of others. The Incredibles was barking way up the wrong tree with this particular idea.

In you believe Frank Herbert, it isn't that "all power corrupts," it's that power attracts the corruptible. As far as systems and groups and politics and whatnot, it's an important to remember that groups, when they achieve power, will frequently abandon, or at least lose sight of, their original goals and ideals in favor of perpetuating the status quo that keeps them in power. Nearly anyone put in power wants to keep that power (which is why we still remember Cincinnatus, and why George Washington was so impressive—because they willing gave power up) and once one is the favored class, one tends to want to stay that way. Along these lines, I find it interesting that on the current Flash tv series that Barry is so far the only person who received powers in the particle reactor accident who has actually elected to use them to help people. The same trend is present in classic Spider-Man comics, and you used to see it in Superman comics as well.

edited 8th Nov '14 10:30:01 AM by Robbery

Well, it's another genre necessity to have a large rogues gallery for the hero to fight each month, but otherwise yeah, you're right. It's telling that the aforementioned film only referred to the empowered vigilantes as "supers", rather than, say, costumed heroes, masked avengers or my personal favorite - capes. The implication was that their powers were the main thing setting them apart, which, again, has never been a cornerstone of the superhero genre. Instead, the movie's preaching against tall poppy syndrome works closer to the reverse - that genetically superior ubermenschen should never be restricted by the mores and morals of puny humans... and the puny humans should reward and celebrate them for it, even though they're not really doing anything actually worthwhile.

I get a similar sense of inflation from plenty of urban fantasy novels - the impression that, for all their talk, the supers in question don't have much going for them. If being a vampire only forces you to participate in cut-throat Byzantine power games, or wallow in teenage wangst for centuries; or if being a wizard simply means you work as a magical filing clerk in the British bureaucracy; then I'm kinda puzzled at just what's so "super" about being super, at least in these fictional worlds. Way to make transhumanism seem boring.

It's interesting that Brad Bird doesn't see that as the point of the film at all (and I agree with him), nor even a theme (can't really agree there). If I remember right, he once said that he felt that was a humourless and restrictive interpretation, and he only wanted to demonstrate the effects of frustration on people forced to go "mainstream" in order to be accepted.

Does anyone know if Brad Bird is an Objectivist?

I agree that's probably what Bird meant, given how Ratatouille has pretty much the same theme of supernatural self-actualization. I think, however, that he chose the wrong metaphor for that message. Superheroism is neither a show of talent, nor a race, nor a venue for self-expression. If anything, it's actually closer to what the film preached against - the needs of others are far more important than personal ambitions, anyone can join in to help, no matter their power level, and everyone is special and deserves praise for doing so. You don't see Nightwing or Hawkeye getting flak for stealing the spotlight from the real supers with their mediocre natural talents. Moreover, the real heroes are universally considered to be precisely the boring masses of identical-looking lawmen. So yeah, I get why a professional entertainer would have a chip on his shoulder about others not appreciating his talents, but like I said, he decided to bark up the wrong tree about it.

Looking back, The Incredibles seems to be the exact same sort of esteem-boosting crap that every Chosen One storyline says, how it's THEIR fault they don't appreciate how special and unique. I mean, the main message of that movie seems to be that only a certain kind of person can make a difference, and that anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong and is trying to hold you back.

Great, now I can never watch The Incredibles again.

It's funny, but that's actually the main reason I often find Lisa Simpson annoying. She tends to stray into "I'm brilliant and special and why can't any of you idiots see it?" territory. You hear such things from a lot of performers when they give interviews, when they say stuff like "Yeah, I grew up in a redneck town where no one appreciated how cool I was" or words to that effect. They didn't like you? That's really unfair, because you obviously respect THEIR value as human beings...

In Bird's case, he's kinda covered this territory before in Iron Giant...the town of Rockwell is obviously meant to be an affectionate idealization of a late 50's early 60's era small town, but the fact that pretty much everyone we meet who isn't the hero (who is "gifted"), his mom, or a hipster outcast who literally lives outside town in a junkyard, is a close-minded oaf is a mite telling.

http://videogamesoftheoppressed.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/some-non-game-related-thoughts-on-superman-and-one-kind-of-rushed-game-related-one/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDoDX4fIxhE Check these links out.

edited 9th Nov '14 12:06:24 PM by mrterrorface

This brings me back to my point - just about the only way to make a "superman" narrative work at all, is to present everyone else as a bunch of sheeple, or indeed muggles, which can only be stretched so far before it becomes unnervingly self-gratifying when it isn't just laughably unconvincing. Yes, Lisa Simpson is the smartest girl in Springfield - but hey, that's Springfield. Around even mildly competent people, she'd just be an average girl with an abrasive attitude and an over-inflated opinion of herself.

And this is why I hardly consider designated supermen to be worth worrying about, or even be particularly interesting. Instead, when it comes to superior force, I'm more appreciative of the Batman or James Bond-type operatives, whose technology is merely one step ahead of mass produced gadgets... but it's always one step ahead, so it grows and develops as they do. There's a reason the cowl is popularly thought to be the most dangerous member of the Justice League.

edited 9th Nov '14 12:33:19 PM by indiana404

I dunno...in terms of Superman himself, I see him functioning as something of an ambassador and buffer between Earth (or at least humanity) and the weirdness that is the rest of the universe. He kind of got this treatment in All Star Superman, and frequently did during the Silver Age stories where he wasn't trying to protect his secret ID from Lois (there are more of these than you think!). It's a bit similar to the way the Doctor is frequently portrayed over in Doctor Who, though even in Doctor Who you frequently get the Doctor trying to get humanity to NOT defend themselves aggressively against alien incursion, and when humanity does it generally makes things worse. There does seem to be a bit of the "A PERSON is smart, PEOPLE are stupid, panicky animals" going on.

I understand there was some backlash when early in the 10th doctor's run he chewed out and underhandedly deposed Harriet Jones for ordering Torchwood to superlaser a retreating alien invasion fleet. Her argument - that he's not always around when needed and humanity should be able to defend itself - made a lot more sense to me too. It was much like how in superhero comics, whenever the idea of civil authority and humanity in general possessing vast power does come along, it's only to be vilified. Perish the thought we don't need supermen to save us.

Ironically, this was the idea behind early superhero comics and cartoons - that prancing around in a cape is fun and all, but the real heroes are those policemen and soldiers who fight the good fight in real life. In those times, even Gotham was yet to become the wretched hive of today, thus Batman was more akin to a great detective called only for the most exotic cases. I think the industry could use some of that grounding nowadays, rather than keep producing increasingly larger windmills that only the most powerful capes can fight.

edited 9th Nov '14 1:09:38 PM by indiana404

I don't think there's anything wrong with people in the DC or Marvel universe being prepared for the day Superman (or any other superhero) goes bad. To begin with, it's already happened in multiple continuities. All-Star Superman has a great example: Superman is hit with black Kryptonite, which turns him evil, and thanks to a boost to his powers he received earlier, he's currently too powerful for most of the Anti-Superman weapons he helped develop!

Second, even if Superman doesn't go bad, many of his foes are people who have his strength but not his morality, so the everyday people are well aware that utter tyrants like Mongul, or would-be benevolent despots like Sinestro, or super powered bullies like Lobo can show up from anywhere. So that's going to contribute to a general sense of preparedness, or even paranoia.

Given how Marvel's heavy hitters are either science heroes frequently on government payroll, or openly acknowledged walking disaster areas, which the former are employed to subdue, the verse in general tends to avoid the issue altogether. Bewaring the Hulk and funding countermeasures is considered basic common sense.

To contrast, the DCU veers uncomfortably into the opposite - the quickest way to find next month's power hungry hypocrite is to look for anyone openly critical or apprehensive about unregulated superhumans flying overhead. Bonus points if hazmats are still cleaning up the wreckage from Superman's latest Brainwashed and Crazy rampage.

In general, the problem arises whenever some writer gets the idea that it's the capes' strength that defines their identity, as opposed to their stance. What would things be like if Superman wasn't more powerful than all the world's armies combined? What would change if he wasn't the be-all, end-all of spandex justice enforcement? Under proper writing, nothing much. Physically, his speed, self-control and independence still give him the edge in responding to threats with only as much force as needed, as opposed to arriving late and nuking everything for good measure. And the one bit of characterization that would have to be dropped is his wangsty god-complex - and I hardly think anyone's gonna miss that. Only two plots will be rendered inoperable - the tired old "even Superman can't do X" drama, which is one of those "well, duh" ideas in popular circulation, and of course the thread's headline itself, which inevitably crashes down into political polemics anyway.

I'd argue that Marvel heroes have been walking disaster areas on par with the average DC hero (About Lantern level, with Superman being considered a higher extreme) for a long while now.

Wonder Man, Professor X, Iceman, Cable, The Human Torch, Thor, Captain/Ms. Marvel, Nova, Quasar, She-Hulk (or ANY Hulk for that matter), The Sentry, Hercules, Phoenix, etc, etc, etc. are all characters whom, at some point or another, have demonstrated the ability to destroy a planet with modest effort. The most popular Marvel characters happen to be Spider-man or Wolverine-level, but Marvel has been the subject of a massive power creep at least since the late 80s.

edited 11th Nov '14 2:33:48 PM by KingZeal

"Truthfully, I'd like to see a story that has the Superman himself going Beware the Superman."

Irredeemable.

There's also a ton of stories of alt-Superman going bad. Injustice, Justice Lords, etc.