Superman

Given that no one in Real Life has powers like Superman, using him as a role model or moral examplar only makes sense if you treat his powers as a metaphor, and metaphors don't require realism to work; in fact, introducing too much realism into a metaphorical tale can lead to Metaphorgotten.

A big part of Superman mythology is that he's an Invincible Hero who can defeat any opposition and achieve almost anything with extreme ease. When used as a moral figure, it's usually to deliver a lesson about how people with power should use it on behalf of those without. Portraying a Superman of limited power who cannot achieve everything he sets out to do results in a very different story with a very different message.

edited 20th Dec '13 12:56:31 AM by RavenWilder

So what? That doesn't make the innocent people he screws over any less dead.

Saying that makes it seem like your main problem with Superman is just sour grapes from him being "better" than everyone else, not what he actually does.

Keep in mind that vigilantes were created at a time when the law was literally inexperienced with urban crime. Large urban population centers hadn't existed for more than 50 years when the Golden Age began, and superheroes created at the time reflected the inexperience of wide-scale enforcement. There was no FBI back then, no DEA, CIA, no DHS. So yeah, heroes were more violent because there was no precedent set.

But now, there is. Arguing that "it was better when superheroes didn't have 'kiddy' gloves" is missing the point that the reason those "kiddie gloves" were put on in the first place is that people started figuring out that the more violent crap didn't actually work. Yes, in comics, the reason was censorship, but the same is true in Real Life.

edited 20th Dec '13 12:55:54 AM by KingZeal

Thing is, violent crime in real life went down, while due to the Superhero Paradox, the situation in comics actually worsened. A rampaging dinosaur or giant robot used to be a challenge, and now they're small fry next to genocidal warlords and world-ending monstrosities. And that's not even going into Gotham's maniacs, whose antics dwarf those of Punisher villains, even though they face the most morally restrained hero of all. So, the superheroic wrist-slapping methodology seems to have been counter-productive.

Exactly. It's only when he - the one with power - started being used as an example for those without it, that the "let them eat cake" issue occured. And to resolve that, MOS presented superpowerful threats that were to him what real life challenges are to other people - namely, difficult. Difficult choices, difficult sacrifices. But in making those, he could actually have a moral compass on the same level as other people, so as to set an example for them. He's no longer the Big Blue Brother who plays life on easy mode while lecturing those who don't. Instead, he faces threats on-screen that are impossibly hard, so as to inspire others to face those real life challenges that are merely incredible.

edited 20th Dec '13 1:26:07 AM by indiana404

But again, we both agree that comic books are contrived, right? So you can't use comic book logic (i.e., "the world got worse) to justify this argument. The comic book universe gets worse whether you use lethal force or not. The Dark Age wasn't some paradise where innocent people never died and evil was always punished. Just the opposite, in fact.

And on the second point, let me ask you this: would you be fine, then, with Superman stories where he still makes the world a better place, even with his code of killing? Because otherwise, once again, the whole "Big Blue Brother" argument just sounds like sour grapes.

edited 20th Dec '13 1:30:00 AM by KingZeal

Yes. Which is why I vote for villains like Zod, Luthor, or even the Joker to not be written as unrepentant Complete Monsters, because the world can't be made a better place while they keep wrecking it. It is also why the animated adaptation of All-Star Superman where Luthor peacefully surrenders after his epiphany, is tons better than the original where Supes punches him out regardless of it.

I've noted it before - Spider-Man doesn't (usually) kill, but most of his enemies are broken men or Well Intentioned Extremists that still have a good side. The Punisher rarely spares the bullet, but he also deals with those who've earned it ten times over. All in all, it's a matter of proportionality. That's why fandom gives the Flash a free pass to play around with the Rogues - because even they don't kill - while Batman is near-constantly urged to finally pull the plug on at least one of his enemies, for whom killing sprees are among his lesser crimes. Plain and simple proportion.

So yes - make Superman a paragon of mercy. But not before you give him opponents that warrant it.

edited 20th Dec '13 2:02:03 AM by indiana404

And that last point is where we continue to disagree.

I don't see how enemies that warrant it means that Superman (or Batman, or anyone) needs to develop a deadly force policy. As I've mentioned before—Batman deciding to kill The Joker makes no sense to me. Oh yeah, sure, he's a psycho and we all know he'll kill again. That's why I'm saying that the state needs to be the one to handle the execution.

If we're "fixing" comic book universes, then there is no reason at all to stop with just what you propose. Why should vigilantes be trusted to decide what degree of force is suited? As I mentioned with the Punisher—all he does is kill criminals "who deserve it", but in a single movie he where he kills an innocent cop, that showed exactly the flaw with this policy. Whether or not villains "deserve" to die is subjective, and not for one person to decide. And even left to the devices of one person, let's keep in mind that superheroes are supposed to not just reflect the world as it is, but a "better" way.

My entire problem with this sort of argument about Superman is that the whole "better way" gimmick gets lost in a torrent of "but real life isn't like that" rhetoric. Of course it's not. That's the point.

So... the point is for Superman to present a better way... that no way in Hell would work in real life? Perfectly logical.

Honestly, even Bugs Bunny was more realistically minded than that - when the situation called for a real superman, he joined the marines. There's your better way.

Who are these people without power you're talking about? 'Cause I'm willing to bet almost everyone who's lived past infancy has, at one point or another, had power over another person.

For example, suppose you see someone accidentally leave their wallet sitting on a park bench. You could call out to them and say, "Hey, you forgot your wallet". You could say nothing and just go about your business. Or you could steal all the cash and credit cards from the wallet and go on a spending spree. It's entirely up to you; that person's wallet is completely in your power.

Not every situation is going to be fraught with difficulty. Sometimes doing the right thing (and doing the wrong thing) is really quite easy. Stories don't often deal with those sorts of situations because they make it harder to create dramatic conflict, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them.

Again, superheroes only work as role models if you view their superheroic actions as metaphors for real world actions. And metaphorical aptness often doesn't mesh well with real world plausibility. For example, Animal Farm would have been a lot more realistic if the animal uprising had resulted in the military capturing all the farm animals so scientists could study them and discover how they'd gained sentience, but that would have ruined the whole Russian Revolution allegory.

edited 20th Dec '13 2:50:20 AM by RavenWilder

The people "over here" and "over there" in Grounded, for instance. And in real life, the ones for which doing the right thing carries far greater risks than a contractually-immortal superhuman faces. The ones whose even limited power comes with full direct responsibility, diametrically unlike an anonymous vigilante who can always hide behind a pair of specs. That's where even this metaphor breaks down - he is the last person on Earth who can lecture on power, since his own came solely from birth, can be hidden whenever he wants, and is unattached to any responsibility to anyone. Even real life dictators have it harder than that. Contrast that with the other guy wearing the flag, who earned his power through his virtue, and ever since that happened, everyone knew who he was and where to find him. Now that's a metaphor.

edited 20th Dec '13 2:59:19 AM by indiana404

The moral is that, when you have power over someone, you should use that power to help them, not to bully or control them. Superman is just the extreme version of that moral: he has immense power over everyone, therefore he has to help everyone.

That said, stories where Superman lectures other people? Yeah, those usually suck hard.

edited 20th Dec '13 3:18:50 AM by RavenWilder

Quite. This whole episode started with @Handle being skeptical of one such story and the moral stance pushed therein. Lectures are bad enough on their own, but when you need to strawman the other side just to prop them up, it's clear you're doing something wrong.

edited 20th Dec '13 3:32:10 AM by indiana404

Yeah, I like the fact that Superman is an overdog hero, but that is not the guy you should give didactic moral statements to.

edited 20th Dec '13 3:50:15 AM by RavenWilder

I mean, gosh, it's only like Superman himself doesn't exist in Real Life, and that he has abilities which can't be realistically accounted for in Real Life.

Oh wait, yes, that's exactly what it's like.

Oh yeah. Because it's not like there was a war going on at the time and every cartoon was engaging heavily in propaganda *rolls eyes*.

One second you don't like speeches and moral posturing, but then you use that as an example of a "better way"? This makes NO sense.

edited 20th Dec '13 9:25:46 AM by KingZeal

I think @Raven Wilder put it best - an Invincible Hero is all good and fun to watch, but hardly qualified to preach on morality. To contrast, army-sponsored messages may be over the top, but at least their standpoint has some basis in reality - if you want to fight, get in the army. Similarly, if you want to fight crime the moral way, get a badge. But if you want to flaunt abilities ordinary people don't have, at the same time hiding your identity so as to never be accountable for any possible misuse, and still feel like lecturing on moral grounds - by all means, get bent.

Joining the army nor joining the police force does not equal morality. In Real Life, yes, it's the most likely way you can be moral and fight crime, but it in no way equals morality. The treatment of minorities and death toll of innocents that has been covered up in war crimes are clear indications of that.

The point to an Invincible Hero is that they are a speculation on what could be and not just a reflection of what is. Superman is a character that is high on speculation and low on reflection, which is (in my opinion) the entire appeal of the character. As I mentioned before, the reason Spider-man works best when his identity isn't known is that unlike Real Life cops, he isn't at risk of The Kingpin having a spy in the police force and learning about the family he leaves at home.

On top of that, hiding behind his identity doesn't really help Superman. "Superman" is a more well-known identity than "Clark Kent", and has more of a reputation to lose. And even then, Superman's Secret Identity was originally to aid his crime-fighting, although later writers tried to impose that whole "Clark Kent is the real person" nonsense I hate so much.

edited 20th Dec '13 9:58:33 AM by KingZeal

Here's the thing about Superman: it's true that he rarely faces any meaningful resistance when he tries to do the right thing; however, there's also nothing forcing him to do the right thing. Society has a lot of laws and rules designed to make people play nice with each other; for many people, being a good person simply means not doing anything that'd get them in trouble. Superman doesn't have to worry about getting in trouble, though; his immense power could let him get away with anything. That he still devotes himself to helping others is meant to deliver the message that you should do the right thing even when no one's making you.

A simple message, yes, but then, Superman was designed as entertainment for children.

edited 20th Dec '13 11:30:06 AM by RavenWilder

Good point. In a lot of ways, he works much better as the simple Kansas farmboy who sets out to do the right thing and just happens to be bulletproof, rather than the unaccountable alien demigod whose Might Makes Right. This is reflected even visually in the Golden Age, where he's drawn without a Lantern Jaw of Justice or oversized musculature, and looks just like... Clark Kent in a Superman suit. Because... that's who he is. Not the "real" person, as much the only actual person.

But it's precisely this person that often gets ignored by the overzealous Kill Bill Misaimed Fandom, or erased by any Writer on Board wishing to put their own Author Tract in the guy's mouth. There are simply things that Clark Kent wouldn't say, so he's conveniently absent from these stories. Just picture him trying to sell the "over here, over there" speech to his Ma, and you'll see what I mean.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point, if only because "Clark Kent is the real/only persona" is just as stupid as "Superman is the real/only persona". They're both the same guy. Saying Superman is "really" Clark is forcing a human perspective on a character that, if we want him to actually represent justice, should not have a human perspective. Sure, Superman should have human interests (as in, caring when people get hurt), but he should have those interests coupled with the perspective of someone who doesn't have to worry if printing this expose is going to get him attacked by the mob.

edited 20th Dec '13 12:56:16 PM by KingZeal

Hmm two people have dominated a thread for 3 pages.

Thats some impressive disagreement right there.

"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins

If only one of them was willing to compromise their principles and kill the other, they could spare the rest of us the collateral damage.

As long as it remains civil and non-boring...

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

@ Indiana: The "over there, over here" speech wouldn't make sense coming from Clark Kent, but then, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, period.

True dat. Try this one, then. Only, when he comes to "the reality we all share", feel free to ask - "All who?" 'Cause after a fight that's leveled half the town, I don't find the answer "all survivors" particularly satisfactory.

Speaking of which, ever notice the irony in how, in a later appearance, the writers chose to have Black kill himself, thus both sparing Superman from being responsible, and still ending the story with the villain dead? For all intents and purposes, even they didn't share the cape's views on how to permanently deal with villainous threats, but still had to take the Disney way out in not having him drive the blade himself. Apparently, it is fun to kill bad guys.

edited 21st Dec '13 12:22:27 AM by indiana404

Come on, everyone was explicitly alive in that story, and the leveling was limited to somepieces of one street. More importantly, while wanting to live in a fair, peaceful, compassionate world is very nice, the speech suffers from a bad case of Concepts Are Cheap. It would have been nice if the Elite hadn't turned out to be sociopaths, but, instead, people who fought for what they thought was right; a Good Versus Good conflict would have been interesting.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Not everyone. Now, it's all well and good as long as violence is limited to destruction of property, but as soon as an innocent gets dusted in plain sight, I'm rooting for the guy who vapes the perpetrator himself. That's where Superman's emphasis on the "fun to kill" quote hits a false tone - because the original was "fun to kill bad guys". Much as joining the army in WWII didn't automatically make you a Nazi, so does killing a murderer not make you one yourself.

edited 21st Dec '13 2:16:00 AM by indiana404