Why Superman doesn't necessarily suck
A point-by-point refutation of this article.
The arguments posed in the above article are all ones I've heard before, but this is as good a time as any to stand up in defense of the boy in blue. The general thread of attacks leveled against him have always been basically that he is simply too powerful to be interesting. I counter with the argument that Superman's godhood is exactly what gives him the potential to be the focus of more interesting tales than the common superhero genre is given to. Consider that some of the most complex and celebrated characters in comics are similarly invulnerable: Sandman's Morpheus, or Watchmen's Doctor Manhattan, even The Spectre. When a character no longer has to worry about the simple melodrama of whether they can beat their opponents, they come upon the potentially much more interesting question of whether they should.
1. Indestructibility
I won't argue that Superman has vulnerabilities, because it's counter productive. Yes, there is kryptonite, yes he is vulnerable to magic, yes he has time and again been faced with situations that make him unusually vulnerable.
The truth, however, is that over Superman's long history, the tendency is that the stories that invent ways for superman to be more vulnerable are actually the least interesting ones. Kryptonite feels cheap and gimmicky, which is why so many of Superman's writers have tried to do away with it as a crutch for weak storytelling.
The stories that are successful instead focus on his more natural, human failings and weaknesses. For example, Superman relies on his identity as Clark Kent entirely as a psychological support. He does not need an alter ego to be a superhero, he needs it so that he can feel human. As opposed to everyone's favorite man in black leather, who keeps his identity as Bruce Wayne entirely for practical reasons and is fully prepared to lose a few Robins or Alfreds in the line of duty if that's what needs to happen to get the job done. Deprived of the elements of his human life, Superman would lose his moral grounding, and quickly stop being Superman. Time and again it's been shown, that if Lois dies, Superman disappears as certainly as if you had put a kryptonite bullet in his brain. And Lois has no invulnerability whatever.
2. Moral Absolutism
Far from having no morals, Superman is burdened with an abundance of them. He believes in the basic goodness of humanity, he believes in the value of truth and honesty. Relatively rare among superheroes, he very explicitly believes in God. He believes in democracy. He doesn't just support the establishment, he has an honest and powerful belief that a government of the people, by the people and for the people is both possible and right and that it must be supported. So powerful is this belief that he is forced to stand idly by and let Lex Luthor become president.
Superman has to keep himself to such a strict morality, because the temptation to abuse his basically limitless power is overwhelming. He lives with the full knowledge that at any moment, he could easily conquer the whole of the planet Earth and begin ruling it as king. He could enforce peace, and end all wars. In a day. But that would also make him exactly what he has fought against, a ruthless alien tyrant.
Batman may have exciting moral greyness, but he doesn't live with the same stakes - if he breaks the law now and again or plays favorites with criminals, it carries no real consequence. If Superman doesn't keep himself to his own rigid moral structure, he can doom the planet.
3. The World doesn't need a Superman
A very legitimate argument that as the article mentions, is brought up time and again within Superman stories. Most often it comes out of the mouth of Lex Luthor, who is quick to point out that Superman is an alien with no right to interfere on Earth. Superman has no easy answer to this, in fact it's clear that this is something he struggles with himself.
Superman has incredible power, but no legitimacy and no natural authority. He can do anything, but is solely and personally responsible for the consequences of his acts. He can see people suffering everywhere but is burdened with the knowledge that helping them in the short term may be harming humanity in the long term. A potentially very interesting dilemma.
The truth is, the question "Do we need a Superman?" is basically a metaphor for "Do we need God?" And if a comic book character can help us tackle a question that big, I think he deserves a little credit.
4. Powers Given < Powers Earned
Honestly, I'm not sure what the basis is for this argument. Certainly we give Superman no "credit" for having stumbled upon his godhood rather than earning it. However, if he had somehow fought his way towards power, the moral questions he faces wouldn't make nearly as much sense. I grant that the "struggle for power" vs. "burden of unwanted power" are clearly two different kinds of stories, each with their own conflicts, I don't know that one is necessarily more interesting than the other. There are examples within comics and in fiction at large of both good and bad stories of both models.
5. Batman > Superman
Well, it always comes down to this. Here's my opinion: it's easier to write an interesting Batman story, because Batman is basically a pulp hero vigilante. And pulp action and detective stories are fun, always have been. A Batman story doesn't need moral ambiguity to be entertaining, it just needs mystery and crime and melodrama.
Superman stories that revolve around a straightforward villain and a battle are boring as shit. Superman will win, the end. Superman stories gain their drama from the choices Superman has to make. Save Lois or save the planet? Save Jimmy at the cost of your secret identity? Stop a nuclear war by becoming a Kryptonian overlord? Kill one man to save thousands?
It's a lot harder to successfully carry off a good Superman tale than to carry off a decent Batman story. So there are unsurprisingly a lot more terrible Superman stories out there than there are really unreadable Batman stories. But from my perspective, the Superman stories have the potential to be much more powerful when they're done well.
And yes, I fully admit that given 24 hours prep time, there's no question that Batman would beat Supes every time. Because, really, Batman never loses. Superman has to accept defeat every day.
No matter how powerful he is, he will never be able to fix everything. He goes to bed every day knowing that while he was saving some people, others died because he wasn't there, and even more may die tomorrow as a consequence of his choices.
6. To fix these problems is to turn him into another superhero altogether
What this point is really arguing against, and it's something that bothers me too, is that DC comics has historically been very cowardly about what they will let happen to Superman. They can be very hesitant to let him legitimately deal with the big problems because they're afraid it devalues him as a character. It can be frustrating, because it is often these issues that are what have the potential to make him a much more interesting and powerful character.
All I can say to this is that things may be changing. The last few years in comics have shown that both Marvel and DC are more and more willing to let good writers do unprecedented things to their properties and to have those changes have real and lasting impact. I haven't been keeping the closest tabs on recent issues but last I heard, Wonder Woman killed a guy in cold blood. Civil War turned a lot of "heroes" into villains, and turned black and white morality into a lovely grey mush. Change is in the air.
Anyone who is interested in further reading on this topic, I can refer to my thesis, which is available through the FIT library, and also on pdf through me.
The arguments posed in the above article are all ones I've heard before, but this is as good a time as any to stand up in defense of the boy in blue. The general thread of attacks leveled against him have always been basically that he is simply too powerful to be interesting. I counter with the argument that Superman's godhood is exactly what gives him the potential to be the focus of more interesting tales than the common superhero genre is given to. Consider that some of the most complex and celebrated characters in comics are similarly invulnerable: Sandman's Morpheus, or Watchmen's Doctor Manhattan, even The Spectre. When a character no longer has to worry about the simple melodrama of whether they can beat their opponents, they come upon the potentially much more interesting question of whether they should.
1. Indestructibility
I won't argue that Superman has vulnerabilities, because it's counter productive. Yes, there is kryptonite, yes he is vulnerable to magic, yes he has time and again been faced with situations that make him unusually vulnerable.
The truth, however, is that over Superman's long history, the tendency is that the stories that invent ways for superman to be more vulnerable are actually the least interesting ones. Kryptonite feels cheap and gimmicky, which is why so many of Superman's writers have tried to do away with it as a crutch for weak storytelling.
The stories that are successful instead focus on his more natural, human failings and weaknesses. For example, Superman relies on his identity as Clark Kent entirely as a psychological support. He does not need an alter ego to be a superhero, he needs it so that he can feel human. As opposed to everyone's favorite man in black leather, who keeps his identity as Bruce Wayne entirely for practical reasons and is fully prepared to lose a few Robins or Alfreds in the line of duty if that's what needs to happen to get the job done. Deprived of the elements of his human life, Superman would lose his moral grounding, and quickly stop being Superman. Time and again it's been shown, that if Lois dies, Superman disappears as certainly as if you had put a kryptonite bullet in his brain. And Lois has no invulnerability whatever.
2. Moral Absolutism
Far from having no morals, Superman is burdened with an abundance of them. He believes in the basic goodness of humanity, he believes in the value of truth and honesty. Relatively rare among superheroes, he very explicitly believes in God. He believes in democracy. He doesn't just support the establishment, he has an honest and powerful belief that a government of the people, by the people and for the people is both possible and right and that it must be supported. So powerful is this belief that he is forced to stand idly by and let Lex Luthor become president.
Superman has to keep himself to such a strict morality, because the temptation to abuse his basically limitless power is overwhelming. He lives with the full knowledge that at any moment, he could easily conquer the whole of the planet Earth and begin ruling it as king. He could enforce peace, and end all wars. In a day. But that would also make him exactly what he has fought against, a ruthless alien tyrant.
Batman may have exciting moral greyness, but he doesn't live with the same stakes - if he breaks the law now and again or plays favorites with criminals, it carries no real consequence. If Superman doesn't keep himself to his own rigid moral structure, he can doom the planet.
3. The World doesn't need a Superman
A very legitimate argument that as the article mentions, is brought up time and again within Superman stories. Most often it comes out of the mouth of Lex Luthor, who is quick to point out that Superman is an alien with no right to interfere on Earth. Superman has no easy answer to this, in fact it's clear that this is something he struggles with himself.
Superman has incredible power, but no legitimacy and no natural authority. He can do anything, but is solely and personally responsible for the consequences of his acts. He can see people suffering everywhere but is burdened with the knowledge that helping them in the short term may be harming humanity in the long term. A potentially very interesting dilemma.
The truth is, the question "Do we need a Superman?" is basically a metaphor for "Do we need God?" And if a comic book character can help us tackle a question that big, I think he deserves a little credit.
4. Powers Given < Powers Earned
Honestly, I'm not sure what the basis is for this argument. Certainly we give Superman no "credit" for having stumbled upon his godhood rather than earning it. However, if he had somehow fought his way towards power, the moral questions he faces wouldn't make nearly as much sense. I grant that the "struggle for power" vs. "burden of unwanted power" are clearly two different kinds of stories, each with their own conflicts, I don't know that one is necessarily more interesting than the other. There are examples within comics and in fiction at large of both good and bad stories of both models.
5. Batman > Superman
Well, it always comes down to this. Here's my opinion: it's easier to write an interesting Batman story, because Batman is basically a pulp hero vigilante. And pulp action and detective stories are fun, always have been. A Batman story doesn't need moral ambiguity to be entertaining, it just needs mystery and crime and melodrama.
Superman stories that revolve around a straightforward villain and a battle are boring as shit. Superman will win, the end. Superman stories gain their drama from the choices Superman has to make. Save Lois or save the planet? Save Jimmy at the cost of your secret identity? Stop a nuclear war by becoming a Kryptonian overlord? Kill one man to save thousands?
It's a lot harder to successfully carry off a good Superman tale than to carry off a decent Batman story. So there are unsurprisingly a lot more terrible Superman stories out there than there are really unreadable Batman stories. But from my perspective, the Superman stories have the potential to be much more powerful when they're done well.
And yes, I fully admit that given 24 hours prep time, there's no question that Batman would beat Supes every time. Because, really, Batman never loses. Superman has to accept defeat every day.
No matter how powerful he is, he will never be able to fix everything. He goes to bed every day knowing that while he was saving some people, others died because he wasn't there, and even more may die tomorrow as a consequence of his choices.
6. To fix these problems is to turn him into another superhero altogether
What this point is really arguing against, and it's something that bothers me too, is that DC comics has historically been very cowardly about what they will let happen to Superman. They can be very hesitant to let him legitimately deal with the big problems because they're afraid it devalues him as a character. It can be frustrating, because it is often these issues that are what have the potential to make him a much more interesting and powerful character.
All I can say to this is that things may be changing. The last few years in comics have shown that both Marvel and DC are more and more willing to let good writers do unprecedented things to their properties and to have those changes have real and lasting impact. I haven't been keeping the closest tabs on recent issues but last I heard, Wonder Woman killed a guy in cold blood. Civil War turned a lot of "heroes" into villains, and turned black and white morality into a lovely grey mush. Change is in the air.
Anyone who is interested in further reading on this topic, I can refer to my thesis, which is available through the FIT library, and also on pdf through me.