This is a post in the ongoing series of posts covering research that I didn’t directly use in Purefinder.
I’m biased in so many ways it’s not even worth me detailing.
I’m just putting that there so you know that this is an opinion piece and not something I can claim to be an authority on just because I worked in a comic book shop for a year. I am not an authority on Superman comics. Hell, I can’t even claim to be an authority on the comics I re-read every year. I would, however, suggest that this post could add to the ongoing critique and interesting literary criticism around Superman if only for its sub-headings.
From the Superman comics I’ve read, there are – of course – many facets to his character. Some of it brilliantly detailed by Superdickery, in all its Silver Age weirdness. His is the biggest legacy because his are the biggest powers and he was super first, so much so that I even enjoyed a JLA comic [JLA: The Nail] in the midst of a fairly hocum run. So it is that writers want to write for him: I particularly enjoyed the autobiographical It’s a Bird; but so many writers simply want to write for him because he’s the biggest.
Though many disagree with me [and I’m planning the process of my next novel to challenge my own thoughts on this], I’ve always thought that any writer worth their salt will know their exact ending before they even start. Without it, how can you build the foundations? Perhaps what many writers do is sign onto the job because it’s FRIGGING SOUPERMAN!
[No, not Pea-SouperMan, I’m just misspelling and being declamatory for effect, if ever such a parody character existed I would have written him…YES I’VE WRITTEN HIM. Declamatory funtimes.]
Perhaps that’s also why I see the standalone stories as the better Superman stories.
This post has been prompted by my [now thrice] reading For All Seasons.
What it gets right about Superman is what All Star Superman gets right about Superman and what the recent film, Man of Steel got so very wrong. That is simply one thing:
It is only Clark Kent’s humble kindness, his older-wiser parents, and his recognition of the fragile beauty of life which separates him from being another ultraviolence superhero with parental issues.
*SPOILER WARNING: Don’t read the next 4 paragraphs if you’ve not read All Star…, For All Seasons, or seen Man of Steel. [I don’t really give much away but if you’ve read my blog this far, you’ve probably read ’em and seen it anyway. If you haven’t, get out there and find them!]*
In All Star…, one of the most heartbreaking moments of the whole thing is when Morrison sends the Superman we know back in time so that he can be there when Pa Kent dies. To spend just another moment with the man that raised him, even though both are dying, is more important to him than preserving his own life.
In For All Seasons, when he returns to Smallville and his Pa knows he’s behind him without seeing him then says ‘Mud on city shoes has its own sound. And I’d know your footsteps anywhere, Clark.’ This intimacy and loving human bond is what makes the character so great, Clark honours that. Then later, Jeff Loeb [the writer] shows a conversation between Ma Kent and Lana Lang that really puts my earlier statement into perspective:
Ma Kent: The right woman can often help the right man find the answers he’s looking for.
Lana: I don’t know if a girl from Smallville has very many answers for a “Superman”.
Ma Kent: “Clark”. You, of all people, should know that whether or not he wears a cape and a big red “S” on his chest, he’s still our Clark.
In the film Man of Steel, there is little of this intimacy or recognition of his character and Clark comes across as [if you’ll excuse the particularly academic term] a bit of a dick.
E.g. Some drunk trucker offends you and throws a beer over you when you can fly around the world 12 times in a minute and still have time to punch a warhead into the sun? Well of course destroying his livelihood is an appropriate response – that’s the steely thing to do – if you’re Zach Snyder or Spiderman on one of his Venom days. It isn’t Clark Kent. The only reason Superman is interesting as a character is because that is exactly not what Clark Kent would do. He’d rise above it. Literally if needs be.
*SPOILERS OVER – c’est parti*
Why am I writing then? This has all been done, you say, and it has all been said.
What I want to say is simple:
Yes, and all the awful connotations that last word brings up.
Having an overview in a comic book shop helped me see this but it is only now that I’m delving into the short, tight stories that I’m reminded of what I first found interesting in Superman and what I adored in All Star Superman: Clark’s humanity.
Perhaps Snyder’s second film will address this [and Superman won’t kill millions of humans by not doing the right thing and acting off-planet] but at the moment it still adds to the massive swathe of ill intention that wants to make every quiet, humble superhero into an aggressive, militaristic teen who feels the need to shout about his issues regularly, tell his parents that they’re not his parents, and be so very boringly moody. We’ve all been in bands, we all got over it. Clark never needed to be in a band, he talked it out with his Ma & Pa; they knew that compassion, patience, and learning through hardship & experience is the key.
Perhaps Grant Morrison’s recent run on the new Action Comics will address this and I’m going to go out tomorrow and find every issue of that [if it’s not in trade yet] but I think it’s important to reiterate what’s great and missing about Superman in wider contemporary conceptions outside of interested parties and regular comic-book circles: Clark Kent is kind, quiet, and humble. That is what makes him super. Not Superman.