In Defense of Superman
If you've ever in your life had a conversation about comic books and superheroes, there is an incredible likelihood that you've heard someone say something along these lines, “I don’t like Superman because he’s too perfect, too moral, too indestructible.” As that line of reasoning bubbled in my subconscious, my devil’s advocate streak began to take hold. The popular anti-sentiment toward Superman had me considering him more deeply. I haven’t read that many comic books, but from a purely theoretical standpoint, I began to see Superman as a much more interesting character than he had been given credit for and possibly a much better role model than any other hero.
Putting aside for the moment that there’s a famous series of comics where Superman dies and that the mere possession of Kryptonite can cause any number of destructive consequences, I ask is how hard or not hard a person punches or can be punched our driving emotional connection? People say that they can’t relate to Superman because of his invulnerability, but I feel like I can’t relate to Batman because of his emotional invulnerability. Yes, Superman and I don’t share the same physical risks in our daily life, but we can (and do) share the same emotional risks. After his parents’ murders, Batman closes himself off to almost everyone else. While I, of course, understand that, his emotional defenses prevent me from feeling close to him as a character. That Superman is much less likely to die has no bearing on my emotional connection to him. Do people really think a hero’s level of physical risk is the most important aspect of compelling storytelling?
I think more likely the complaints about his physical prowess are simply an outgrowth of his “boy scout” image. What I assume most people are actually complaining about is his infallibility; how can you relate to a character who doesn't struggle? Avoiding, for the moment, that this criticism could well be levied at the most popular superhero right now (at least cinematically), Batman, I ask is moral struggle the only type of struggle we can feel for? My experience is no: audiences actually relate to other types of emotional struggles more strongly such as love and social struggles. Struggles that Superman experiences in spades with his feelings toward Lois Lane and his strong desire to fit in with humans despite his alien nature.
I want also to briefly note that this “boy scout” portrait of Superman draws heavily from Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and ignores some of Superman’s conceptual history (this is true of current Batman as well). In the very earliest Superman comics, he was a force against social injustice and tyranny, regularly opposing forces like the KKK, not acting as a puppet for American jingoism.
All superheroes are the product of adolescent fantasy in that they involve seeing anyone as having far more power and influence than they do as well as believing that the solutions to complex, systematic problems are simply powerful beings with the right ideas (see: Watchmen, the book, not the movie). So the question should never be is this fantasy (or even how much) but rather is this useful fantasy? Are the fantasy elements easy to identify and peel away for more adult themes and ideas? Are the fantasy elements publicly held fantasy ideas and therefore dangerous by continuing to promote them?
The central fantasy of the Superman story is a morally incorruptible, physically indestructible being in my opinion. On the other hand, the central fantasy of the Batman story appears to be the ability of a person to completely reinvent themselves as the “ideal” version. Batman is the Horatio Alger story for superheroes: a morality play for everyone who believes you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Perhaps you disagree that these are the central fantasies of these worlds, but if you agree, I feel like you have to see the Batman fantasy as the more pernicious one. The projection of an idealized self that ignores who we are genetically and our circumstances and luck as a goal is an extremely popular concept but an unrealistic and, I think, dangerous one.
To put it another way, the fundamental conceit behind Superman is assimilation and behind Batman, it is control. Quentin Tarantino perhaps put it best in Kill Bill when Bill delivers his monologue about his favorite superhero being Superman. Superman dresses up as Clark Kent; Bruce Wayne dresses up as Batman. Now, Bill sees the Clark Kent costume as a critique on humanity, but I disagree with him there. Superman is Superman, the same way Bruce Wayne is Bruce Wayne. They have no choice there. But being Clark Kent and being Batman are the choices they make. Clark Kent isn't Superman’s critique of humans; it’s his love letter to them.
I think each character’s “costume” reveals their personal ideals. Batman’s overarching goal is to prevent crime or to be more specific to prevent other people from having to suffer the way he has suffered. His goal is ultimate control, of his emotions, of his physicality, and of the world around him (in particular the Nolan/Miller Batman, not nearly as much the Batman of Batman the Animated Series). Superman doesn't have to be Clark Kent. He doesn't have to hide who he is for his own protection. He does it because being Clark Kent is what he loves. He loves being near people, not above them (in particular Lois). Superman is literally superior, but he doesn't act superior. When given the opportunity, he wants to be average.
Yet despite all this, Batman has definitely been the more popular superhero of the last 30ish years. From Frank Miller’s comic-based reinvention of him to Tim Burton’s Gothic styled Gotham to the (surprisingly mature) cartoon version in Batman the Animated Series to the wildly popular and critically well-regard Christopher Nolan helmed franchise films, America has been inundated with Batman. Part of that has to do with the quality of the creative team, but I think part of why more creative people have been drawn to Batman is that they know it taps into something more popular right now. I don’t believe that it’s because his character or story is richer. Read Superman For All Seasons for a beautiful and tender take on the caped hero in blue.
As I referenced earlier, Batman (despite his enormous wealth) is seen as a self-made man (in the context of the superhero world). He doesn’t have any powers from birth or radiation accident or mutation; all his talents are developed through training, persistence...and enormous wealth. Because his privilege is environmental (the systems he’s born into) as opposed to genetic (the building blocks of who he is), I believe audiences ignore it and identify more strongly with him, especially young, straight, white men (who also tend not to see their environmental privilege). We don’t need to look far for examples of this type of prejudice. In sports, someone like LeBron James who is enormously genetically privileged is described as an athletic beast (and entitled) while someone like Peyton Manning who had enormous environmental privilege by coming from a football family that gave him the best opportunities to succeed as soon as he showed talent is described as a leader, an intellectual quarterback (and humble).
If you agree that both superheroes are very privileged, that one’s privilege isn’t taken into account in his praise, you should compare their results and choices as opposed to their origins when remarking on them. And in that comparison, Superman is the more interesting character hands down. Bruce Wayne continually isolates himself physically and emotionally for others’ protection, but in doing so, he takes the choice out of their hands. He presumes that it’s not a choice to be made together. Clark Kent continually finds ways to connect to more and more people. While Bruce Wayne is a human that alienates himself and those around him, Superman is an alien that humanizes himself and those around him.
Looking at their major villains helps to underline this point as well. The Joker is the human embodiment of entropy, of the random terror that simply not being able to control the universe brings. Batman and the Joker are often seen as two sides of the same coin, one vying for control and justice, the other for chaos and inequity. That Batman doesn’t kill the Joker has always struck me not as much a moral decision but a fear decision. If Batman kills the Joker, he isn’t exhibiting self-control, and he becomes more like the Joker.
Lex Luthor, on the other hand, is not connected in that emotional way to Superman. They are connected metaphorically: Lex acts as the embodiment of capitalism run amok and unchecked greed. Superman represents the moral ideal of selflessness. His origins, again, were originally about fighting social injustice, to stand up for the voiceless. I think there’s some criticism to be levied there about “white saviors” assuming what other people need while acting for their own benefit and claiming good intentions, but that criticism is for another essay and another day. That Superman never kills Lex seems more about Superman’s belief that Lex can change, that he can wield his influence to make a better world. There is no such redemptive hope in the Joker or really any Batman villains except perhaps Catwoman (and perhaps only there to allow for the sexual tension). While Batman is seen as an example of great change, his rogues gallery seems to underline the opposite belief. While Superman is “boring” because he’s born perfect, he believes in change because he changes. He was born alone, alien, an outcast, and he integrates himself into Kansas, Metropolis, and Earth.
I love the Superman stories for a multitude of reasons, but probably the strongest is the underlying belief that the majors changes Superman must go through to be a hero are accepting who he is and attempting to fit into society where he can and uncovering where he can help. He isn’t attempting to mold the world into what he personally thinks is best (and he well could). I identify with feeling alien. Alone. Different. I identify with wanting to assimilate with a society that sometimes rejects me. I think Superman represents the better ideal for our time and for our adolescents reading these stories and trying to formulate their or morals and philosophies. Superman may be “perfect” but his journey is anything but while the pulling yourself up by your bootstraps narrative that Batman heavily relies on is not only dated but shown time and time again to ignore the heavy influence of systems on how people develop. Batman is seen as the complex hero because he is dark and edgy and has a rogues gallery of nastier types, but I think Superman represents the real complexity of the world better. And his stories have a role model for young women too in Lois Lane, which Batman stories almost never do (sometimes Barbara Gordon). She’s more than just a love interest for Clark Kent. She has her her own life, her own goals. She has a job that she loves and pursues with vigor, which is just another example of how the world of Batman is all about him in a way the world of Superman isn’t.
Putting aside for the moment that there’s a famous series of comics where Superman dies and that the mere possession of Kryptonite can cause any number of destructive consequences, I ask is how hard or not hard a person punches or can be punched our driving emotional connection? People say that they can’t relate to Superman because of his invulnerability, but I feel like I can’t relate to Batman because of his emotional invulnerability. Yes, Superman and I don’t share the same physical risks in our daily life, but we can (and do) share the same emotional risks. After his parents’ murders, Batman closes himself off to almost everyone else. While I, of course, understand that, his emotional defenses prevent me from feeling close to him as a character. That Superman is much less likely to die has no bearing on my emotional connection to him. Do people really think a hero’s level of physical risk is the most important aspect of compelling storytelling?
I think more likely the complaints about his physical prowess are simply an outgrowth of his “boy scout” image. What I assume most people are actually complaining about is his infallibility; how can you relate to a character who doesn't struggle? Avoiding, for the moment, that this criticism could well be levied at the most popular superhero right now (at least cinematically), Batman, I ask is moral struggle the only type of struggle we can feel for? My experience is no: audiences actually relate to other types of emotional struggles more strongly such as love and social struggles. Struggles that Superman experiences in spades with his feelings toward Lois Lane and his strong desire to fit in with humans despite his alien nature.
I want also to briefly note that this “boy scout” portrait of Superman draws heavily from Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and ignores some of Superman’s conceptual history (this is true of current Batman as well). In the very earliest Superman comics, he was a force against social injustice and tyranny, regularly opposing forces like the KKK, not acting as a puppet for American jingoism.
All superheroes are the product of adolescent fantasy in that they involve seeing anyone as having far more power and influence than they do as well as believing that the solutions to complex, systematic problems are simply powerful beings with the right ideas (see: Watchmen, the book, not the movie). So the question should never be is this fantasy (or even how much) but rather is this useful fantasy? Are the fantasy elements easy to identify and peel away for more adult themes and ideas? Are the fantasy elements publicly held fantasy ideas and therefore dangerous by continuing to promote them?
The central fantasy of the Superman story is a morally incorruptible, physically indestructible being in my opinion. On the other hand, the central fantasy of the Batman story appears to be the ability of a person to completely reinvent themselves as the “ideal” version. Batman is the Horatio Alger story for superheroes: a morality play for everyone who believes you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Perhaps you disagree that these are the central fantasies of these worlds, but if you agree, I feel like you have to see the Batman fantasy as the more pernicious one. The projection of an idealized self that ignores who we are genetically and our circumstances and luck as a goal is an extremely popular concept but an unrealistic and, I think, dangerous one.
To put it another way, the fundamental conceit behind Superman is assimilation and behind Batman, it is control. Quentin Tarantino perhaps put it best in Kill Bill when Bill delivers his monologue about his favorite superhero being Superman. Superman dresses up as Clark Kent; Bruce Wayne dresses up as Batman. Now, Bill sees the Clark Kent costume as a critique on humanity, but I disagree with him there. Superman is Superman, the same way Bruce Wayne is Bruce Wayne. They have no choice there. But being Clark Kent and being Batman are the choices they make. Clark Kent isn't Superman’s critique of humans; it’s his love letter to them.
I think each character’s “costume” reveals their personal ideals. Batman’s overarching goal is to prevent crime or to be more specific to prevent other people from having to suffer the way he has suffered. His goal is ultimate control, of his emotions, of his physicality, and of the world around him (in particular the Nolan/Miller Batman, not nearly as much the Batman of Batman the Animated Series). Superman doesn't have to be Clark Kent. He doesn't have to hide who he is for his own protection. He does it because being Clark Kent is what he loves. He loves being near people, not above them (in particular Lois). Superman is literally superior, but he doesn't act superior. When given the opportunity, he wants to be average.
Yet despite all this, Batman has definitely been the more popular superhero of the last 30ish years. From Frank Miller’s comic-based reinvention of him to Tim Burton’s Gothic styled Gotham to the (surprisingly mature) cartoon version in Batman the Animated Series to the wildly popular and critically well-regard Christopher Nolan helmed franchise films, America has been inundated with Batman. Part of that has to do with the quality of the creative team, but I think part of why more creative people have been drawn to Batman is that they know it taps into something more popular right now. I don’t believe that it’s because his character or story is richer. Read Superman For All Seasons for a beautiful and tender take on the caped hero in blue.
As I referenced earlier, Batman (despite his enormous wealth) is seen as a self-made man (in the context of the superhero world). He doesn’t have any powers from birth or radiation accident or mutation; all his talents are developed through training, persistence...and enormous wealth. Because his privilege is environmental (the systems he’s born into) as opposed to genetic (the building blocks of who he is), I believe audiences ignore it and identify more strongly with him, especially young, straight, white men (who also tend not to see their environmental privilege). We don’t need to look far for examples of this type of prejudice. In sports, someone like LeBron James who is enormously genetically privileged is described as an athletic beast (and entitled) while someone like Peyton Manning who had enormous environmental privilege by coming from a football family that gave him the best opportunities to succeed as soon as he showed talent is described as a leader, an intellectual quarterback (and humble).
If you agree that both superheroes are very privileged, that one’s privilege isn’t taken into account in his praise, you should compare their results and choices as opposed to their origins when remarking on them. And in that comparison, Superman is the more interesting character hands down. Bruce Wayne continually isolates himself physically and emotionally for others’ protection, but in doing so, he takes the choice out of their hands. He presumes that it’s not a choice to be made together. Clark Kent continually finds ways to connect to more and more people. While Bruce Wayne is a human that alienates himself and those around him, Superman is an alien that humanizes himself and those around him.
Looking at their major villains helps to underline this point as well. The Joker is the human embodiment of entropy, of the random terror that simply not being able to control the universe brings. Batman and the Joker are often seen as two sides of the same coin, one vying for control and justice, the other for chaos and inequity. That Batman doesn’t kill the Joker has always struck me not as much a moral decision but a fear decision. If Batman kills the Joker, he isn’t exhibiting self-control, and he becomes more like the Joker.
Lex Luthor, on the other hand, is not connected in that emotional way to Superman. They are connected metaphorically: Lex acts as the embodiment of capitalism run amok and unchecked greed. Superman represents the moral ideal of selflessness. His origins, again, were originally about fighting social injustice, to stand up for the voiceless. I think there’s some criticism to be levied there about “white saviors” assuming what other people need while acting for their own benefit and claiming good intentions, but that criticism is for another essay and another day. That Superman never kills Lex seems more about Superman’s belief that Lex can change, that he can wield his influence to make a better world. There is no such redemptive hope in the Joker or really any Batman villains except perhaps Catwoman (and perhaps only there to allow for the sexual tension). While Batman is seen as an example of great change, his rogues gallery seems to underline the opposite belief. While Superman is “boring” because he’s born perfect, he believes in change because he changes. He was born alone, alien, an outcast, and he integrates himself into Kansas, Metropolis, and Earth.
I love the Superman stories for a multitude of reasons, but probably the strongest is the underlying belief that the majors changes Superman must go through to be a hero are accepting who he is and attempting to fit into society where he can and uncovering where he can help. He isn’t attempting to mold the world into what he personally thinks is best (and he well could). I identify with feeling alien. Alone. Different. I identify with wanting to assimilate with a society that sometimes rejects me. I think Superman represents the better ideal for our time and for our adolescents reading these stories and trying to formulate their or morals and philosophies. Superman may be “perfect” but his journey is anything but while the pulling yourself up by your bootstraps narrative that Batman heavily relies on is not only dated but shown time and time again to ignore the heavy influence of systems on how people develop. Batman is seen as the complex hero because he is dark and edgy and has a rogues gallery of nastier types, but I think Superman represents the real complexity of the world better. And his stories have a role model for young women too in Lois Lane, which Batman stories almost never do (sometimes Barbara Gordon). She’s more than just a love interest for Clark Kent. She has her her own life, her own goals. She has a job that she loves and pursues with vigor, which is just another example of how the world of Batman is all about him in a way the world of Superman isn’t.