Well, I reckon there’s only one more nibble of meat left on this bone.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have picked apart DC’s don’t-call-it-a-reboot announcement from almost every angle, from titles to teams to lists of everyone left behind. Every handful of silt in this riverbed has been panned for gold by now, with one notable exception.
They’re saying that, when all the dust has settled in September, Superman and Lois Lane won’t be married anymore. Whether They are people who actually have any idea what They’re talking about, I have no idea, but that’s what They’re saying.
What do we think about that? How does that grab us? I haven’t really heard much of an uproar or outcry either way.
Of course, I say “we” and “us” and try to horn in on the personal pronouns, but I really don’t have a dog in this fight. Spider-Man, I cared about. Peter and Mary Jane’s marriage was a deadening millstone around the neck of one of my favorite series for years (all that book-killing Clone Saga mishegas was just editorial trying to reintroduce an unmarried Peter, you know) and I was licking my chops to see it disappear, so naturally I was following that development like a sports radio listener when the fanbase was going bonkers. I’m sure Superfans online have bid adieu to many a marble about this somewhere, but I just haven’t seen it because I’m not one of them. While Peter Parker feels like one of the screw-ups I went to college with, if not a member of the family, I’ve always felt that Superman is in the running for the least relatable, dullest character in popular fiction.
This is probably not the smartest place to say that, but there you have it. Superman has never been my idea of drama. There’s literally no conflict. Superman always instantly knows exactly what to do. Superman cannot possibly be hurt. Superman does his taxes on New Year’s Eve. Superman orders white toast, then says, “Hold the butter; cholesterol, you know,” then the other person at the table gives the waitress a look as if to say, “We only invite him to brunch because he can super-hear us inviting everyone else from the other side of town.”
(Let me save you some time: “You have no idea what you’re talking about. What business does someone who’s barely read any Superman have bloviating about what’s wrong with Superman?” Fair enough!)
Anyway!
The thing is, while being unmarried is the best thing that’s happened to Spider-Man in years, and I stand by all the reasons I thought so at the time, as a devoted outsider I’m not sure whether or not it would be good for Superman. Superman being married may actually be the best thing that ever happened to him. He and Spidey are very different characters from very different worlds, and at least being married stands a chance of humanizing Superman, who is literally alien to me.
I was thinking about the importance of humanizing this weekend as I watched a movie about Green Lantern, another character that didn’t end up connecting with me despite this one showing signs of an actual personality a few times. In the movie, Hal Jordan spends a lot of time coming to grips with his newfound ability to do literally anything he can imagine by absolutely not doing any of those things, pacing in front of the futon in his apartment. It sounds like a lot of the movie’s detractors saw all this hot loft-pacing action and thought, “When are they going to get to the fireworks factory?!” All I could think was, “In the, what, two years I read Green Lantern comics, did he ever once set foot in his apartment? Or have one? Where did he keep his stuff? Did he have stuff? Did he sleep, or eat a sandwich? Is he a Subway man, or does he prefer Jimmy John’s? I actually would have preferred to find out the answers to these questions rather than having Color Force Whatever Energy explained to me in a featureless field of stars for the four hundredth frickin’ time this year. I would have settled for Hal flying jets with Cowgirl a few more times, just to feel like he had a friend in town.”
I love the space cop in his apartment, finding out the hard way that the milk went bad. I’m right there with him when he’s overwhelmed later, because I know where he’s coming from. I’m more impressed when he rises to the challenge of his mantle because I’ve seen him wrap a present with newspaper in a moving car. (Take it from me, Hal: even if you’ve lowered your nephew’s expectations for years, at least use the Funnies page of the paper.)
Then again, maybe this doesn’t mean Superman should be married. Maybe it just means he needs some sort of relationship, any sort. John Siuntres recently pointed out that maybe the reason Superman seems so boring to me—besides the fact that he has every super power, can never be hurt, always knows exactly what to do and has skim milk with dinner—is that “Clark” needs conflict in his life. Maybe that doesn’t mean he needs Lois; maybe it means he needs Lois and Lana and that flirty barista with the nose ring at the coffee place. Holy Lord in Heaven Above Us, does Clark Kent need more flirty barista with the nose ring at the coffee place. In the opinion of someone who doesn’t buy Clark’s comics and should really mind his own business.
I’ve changed my mind about whether or not Superman should be married twice in the span of a thousand words. Can’t DC change their mind once every fifteen years or so?
I have no idea.
Whatever they decide, it seems sure to reinvigorate the readership, even if it mostly invigorates them to see if the hardware store has any pitchforks. They’ve got me thinking about a character I usually don’t give a second thought to, and that ain’t nothin’. What about you?
Jim Mroczkowski begs you not to recommend All-Star Superman to him again.
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Some rights reserved.
I’m a fan of the Lois and Clark marriage but if they’re going to go through with the relaunch of Superman and his origin then he shouldn’t be married to Lois.
I’m totally with you on Hal Jordan-on-earth being 1000 times more interesting than Hal Jordan in space (both in this movie and the comics.) I don’t know how that tilts the scales on the Supes thing, and I don’t really have an opinion on that either — really, my answer is ‘which ever way ends up showing us MORE of Lois Lane’ since she’s always* been the more interesting half of that couple.
*always = when not played by Kate Bosworth
I think you presented both arguments fairly, for a non-Superman reader.
The marriage of Superman and Lois Lane got some buzz back in the day. In a medium where #1s, resurrections, and reboots are commonplace, it seems very likely that editorial would unmarry Superman only to remarry him sometime in the future.
So either way we win/lose.
If it’s true that they are un-doing the marriage (which all evidence seems to point to) then I’m psyched.
don’t we all need more of that flirty barista with the nose ring though
DC is playing homewrecker in seeing what the guys down the street did w/ their key spider themed hero.
Pro Lois & Clark fan here.
Matthew
I tell you what I want more of is Clark in the newsroom. As a journalist I love the stuff in the newsroom, especially from the geoff johns braniac arc where he had that little rivalry with the sports editor and then cat grant flirting. that stuff was golden and really made me relate to clark.
The undoing of the marriage is a legal thing. DC is getting their duck in a row while the Siegel ownership of Superman looms. It’s the same reason he’ll drop the red trunks. I like the marriage but I can’t blame DC Creative for its dissolution. They kind of got stuck with it.
@RoiVampire Ditto on the newsroom stuff.
I think it’d be fun to see Clark and Lois in their pre-marriage years again. That relationship was a big part of why I loved Smallville and I think it would be fun to see some of it transfer over to the comics.
I love Superman, I love Lois Lane, and I love that they are married. However, even I will admit that having Supes single is probably for the best. Theres nothing wrong with his marriage, it feels sincere and shes the love of his life, its not that he SHOULDN’T be married, its that I think he CAN’T. If Superman were real, he would never be able to hold a stable relationship, he would always bail on his dates because someone is in trouble, and that would create some conflict for the character because lets face it, his life is just way too perfect the way it is.
The one thing I think they shouldn’t do to Superman during this releaunch is not give him ANOTHER. FRAKKING. ORIGIN.
I don’t think marriage is nearly as relevant in modern society as it was 20-30 years ago and longer. Less and less people are getting married and less and less people are staying married. I would like to see Supe’s marriage end in a traditional way – infidelity, mental anguish, shattered dreams… you know – like real life. Lois is so pushy I can’t imagine anyone but a real meek weiner even getting along with her for too long.
Anyway – I don’t read Superman so it don’t matter to me either way.
i agree that Supes lacks drama. He can have every power..just not the power of love! (that huey lewis reference was intentional)
Honestly the marriage aspect of Superman is the least interesting part of the character to me. I like that he has friendships and a job as a journalist. I’d like to see more of that explored over getting soap opera love and relationship stuff.
I would like to see the marriage end in a somewhat natural way: Lois divorcing him because he’s been gone for 3 years now, and him getting fired because he’s taken more leaves of absence than any company ever would allow.
It seems sort of irrelevant to me either way. Superman isn’t Spider-Man where dating and relationships are a major part of the character’s life/stories. (Although a Superman/Clark Kent: Man About Town series would be awesome.) If he’s married to Lois, great. If he’s not, then we’ll have Superman/Lois flirting and possible Lois/Clark complications. I’m good either way.
If DC would decide to produce a Superman comic based on Grandturk’s suggestions then it would definitely lose this longtime Supes fan. A traditional marriage is, and should be relevant in today’s “modern” society, it’s just that it is no longer given the respect and importance that it deserves. Just like Peter and Mary Jane, Lois and Clark should remained married. However, if DC decides to split them up, I can only hope future plans are to reunite the two as quickly as possible. But if I see Lois whispering into Mephisto’s ear………
I think the thing is, if it’s just a reboot and they’re seperated people will deal with it better than the mishandled mess that was Spider-Man. The dating aspect of Spider-Man has been among the most boring parts of the revamped Spidey and in all honesty it presents the main problems of dating someone and being a superhero. The “Will she figure out” crap is not fun anymore. If you look at the slew of Superhero movies or Ultimate Spider-Man, they toss out the secret identity in 5 minutes because of how lame doing that is. The scene with Carol Ferris in the GL movie is the highlight of film.
I’m fine with the marriage but don’t care if it is erased. However, I think the bigger issue iw whether Lois knows Clark is Superman. All the drama from the Clark-Lois-Superman triangle has been played out. I really hope that Semptember doesn’t bring us story after story of Clark thinking “Oh, if only I could tell Lois my secret!”
I’ll be thinking, “You can, Clark, she knew who you were for 15 years and it was no big deal.”
I think that was the only part of the Spider-Man reboot that was well conceived.
I’m sure people are expecting someone like me, who still hates the MJ/Peter retcon, to be in a fit of rage. Seemingly foaming at the mouth and swearing a lot at an effigy at Dan Didio.
But to be honest it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. For one, the Clark/Lois relationship has seem to not been used properly at all in years. Even Geoff Johns amazing run (and origin mini) didn’t do much to make that relationship interesting. Unlike in Spider-Man where the writers did their best to make MJ and Peter’s marriage essential in each story. (Some sucessful, some not) Also, the way Superman is rebooting with him essentially going back to the first day of being Superman makes a hell of a lot more sense then Parker making a deal with a devil. One More Day showed how NOT to do a reboot or at least to change a huge aspect of a character. DC is at least giving a more sensible reason for the ‘break up’ and not making Clark look like a total idiot.
Gotta admit, the last thing I want to read about is a married super-hero. I’m trying to think if I even read any comics now where the hero is married… I’m thinking no.
I’ve always been amazed by how often people throw the “Superman has no drama” around and little that gets applied to Thor who I could swear is who everyone is talking about when they say that. Just a thought.
For me the fun of Superman is he’s in a love triangle with himself. He likes Lois, Lois likes Superman, he is Superman, but can’t tell Lois, so I’m okay with this move. It makes for some fun stories.
I came to this after some soul searching, because I am not okay with Spider-man’s marriage. I think the more pressue/responsibility on Peter the better, I liked him with MJ. And he sold his marriage to the devil 🙂
Another plus for this reboot is, it won’t have all the baggage of Peter and MJ’s split
“You have no idea what you’re talking about. What business does someone who’s barely read any Superman have bloviating about what’s wrong with Superman?”
Well, they’r enot going to kill Lois and I doubt they’ll make Superman a divorcee. So, they’ll just un-do the marriage like it never happened. I’m okay with that, I think they should haev gotten married, and they did, now they can go ahead and re-do it.
But I am in total agreement with Andrew. Make sure Lois knows Clark is Superman, I can’t take anymore of the Lois loves Supermand but not Clark stuff.
@MikeG Returning to that love triangle dynamic would be part of the whole point of undoing the marriage.
I think that the Clark-Lois-Superman triangle is really cheesy and cliched. I know that it’s kinda of a Citizen Kane type situation, because they prioneered it and I only feel the way I do because I’ve seen a hundred copycats, but I just don’t see how they can make it interesing again.
But I am continuously surprised by modern comics, and am certainly not going to stop reading if they change everything. That attitude wouldn’t get me very far as a comic book reader.
I’m a long time Superman fan and I like the marriage. I liked seeing at least one happily married superhero and the big blue boy scout seems like the one hero that would be faithful and commited to his spouse. That being said I can live with Lois and Clark going back to their pre-marriage days. Just PLEASE don’t have Lois not recognize that Superman and Clark are one and the same. She is supposed to be an award winning journelist.
I also agree, that if they go back to being single, there should be no more love triangle. Have their relationship be at a point where they have some history together and the secret was revealed but maybe it was a bit much for both of them and they ended it. The one thing that I will miss about the marriage is that Lois will no longer be the one person in the world Clark goes to talk about any problems or doubts he has. But if Lois knows in this relaunch, then that may still be there.
I get that the love triangle was a classic part of their relationship, but in todays world, it would just make Lois look so absurdly stupid. Not only that, but the love triangle is fun in a classic retro sort of way, but I just can’t see how they could do it today and have it feel fresh and new, it will just feel very throwback-ish. One of the best decisions Morrison made in All Star Superman was to skip past all that and have Clark reveal himself to Lois in the very first issue. So hopefully he will do the same again here.
Clark Kent’s liife struggles have virtually disappeared since the marriage. Jonathon’s death was the one Clark kent moment in recent memory.
In good creator hands both sides of Supes persona were made interesting when Clark was single . We even had THE PRIVATE LIFE OF CLARK KENT as an regular back up feature.
Reboot, and let’s get a single Superman again, and let’s see Lois shine beyond being the sympathetic shoulder for 2 pages per story arc.
The “problem” with Superman isn’t that he’s married. It’s that DC has set him up as a milquetoast boy scout who never even considers doing amorally grey things, by golly (as Jimski points out). Unmarry him, divorce him, whatever… odds are DC won’t undo THAT problem, and Superman as a dramatic character will remain as flawed as ever. And if they DID make him more of a grey character, a character who sometimes considers the not-nice option once in awhile… well, that means he’s no longer Superman. They’ve painted themselves into an editorial corner here that I don’t cleanly see a way out of.
Lois/Clark/Superman thing has been done to death. I’ve noticed Superman and Wonder Woman have been de-aged to the same early twenties I bet ya they do something there for at least a while. That way the female opposite isn’t left to sit at home like M.J. or be rescue bait like Lois was for 80 years.
AND comparing him to Spider-Man doesn’t work because of the simple nature of DC characters vs. Marvel characters. DC characters are gods, and who cares about the personal lives/secret identities of gods? Marvel characters are human beings, and often their behind-the-mask problems are more interesting than their in-the-mask problems, and they’ll even go whole issues barely getting in costume (see: Ultimate Spider-Man). Granted, I’m far more of a Marvel guy and never cared for things like “having Color Force Whatever Energy explained to me in a featureless field of stars for the four hundredth frickin’ time this year.” But think of it this way: Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman. How many times have you as a fan said, “Well, the REAL mask is Bruce Wayne/Clark Kent/Diana; their primary persona IS the hero.” Well, Peter Parker puts on a Spider-Man mask, not the other way around. Undoing Clark/Lois won’t solve anything for a guy who is barely Clark Kent, anyway.
@RaceMcCloud That’s the problem, the writers have ignored the Kent persona and life.
Clark can be unmarried, be less of a milktoast and be interesting and even ponder other relationships. He’s an investigative reporter, who still needs to talk to people to get the stories he’s supposedlty working on.
Dean Cain played a very normal un-weenie-ish Clark Kent.
@RaceMcCloud That is an increidbly overly symplistic and incorrect characterization of DC and Marvel characters. I care just as much about the people under the masks in DC as I do Marvel.
@wordballon – I think the real problem is close to what you’re saying, but 1.) because of what Superman “the Icon” means to Warner Bros. corporate, he can’t be anything BUT the milquetoast, and 2.) I honestly feel (and here we’ll disagree) that 90% of potential Superman readers don’t give a crap about his personal life (I guess I’m disagreeing with Jimski, here, too.) Although I will say that Clark Kent’s personal life feels SLIGHTLY more real than “Bruce Wayne”, who at this point is CLEARLY just a billionaire tool Batman uses to get what he wants in life. (Can THAT be fixed? Maybe. Do I want it to be? I don’t think so, no.) I mean, an alien who desperately wants to be accepted as human by his adopted planet that sees him as a god? There’s a whole lot more drama in THAT than there is in Superman punching the crap out of Metallo or whoever-the-hell-Superman-fights-who-isn’t-Lex-Luthor. Problem is, I don’t know if DC is editorially in a place where they can write or market Superman as a “fish out of water” tale, and not a “world’s greatest hero ever forever” tale.
@conor – Yes, but you’re in the minority. DC characters are heroes first, humans second. Marvel characters are human first, heroes second. Look at their history, sir, that’s the way they were designed. It’s a matter of fact.
@RaceMcCloud Designed that way or not, that doesn’t reflect the reality NOW.
Ever since I was …hell since we all were born, we knew that Clark loved Lois and Lois loved Superman. I’d be interested to see the relationship between Clark and Lois develop a lot slower this go ’round.
It’d be neat to see the start of Lois and Clark’s working relationship begin contentiously. Have Clark not fall cape over boots for Lois. Have them as rivals at the planet. Have Lois’ fascination with Superman border obsession. Build a little “will they or won’t they” tension.
@conor – I’m not saying DC characters have no humanity. I’m saying Marvel characters were designed with humanity (Peter Parker was a schlub in his personal life who couldn’t tell people who awesome he was in his hero life, the FF are a dysfunctional family who happen to have superpowers, the X-Men are, as has been oft discussed, a metaphor for oppression and prejudice more than they are a superteam, the Hulk is a dude who can’t control his emotions…) The DC characters had humanity retconned into them after DC editorial saw what Stan Lee was doing with his “long underwear characters” back in the 60’s, so lots of the stuff in their personal lives (particularly in the long-term iconic characters) can feel tacked-on. The secondary DC guys (Green Arrow, for example, and the characters designed in the modern age) usually feel more human than the “big three”, partially because as heroes in that universe they’re always struggling to get out of the shadow OF that “big three”. The big boys in DC, the longtime heroes, they too often feel like relics from an age almost 100 years ago, when storytelling was far less complex than it is now in comic books, and it’s a problem DC has been trying to fix for decades (and done so most successfully with Batman)… and it is, potentially, what this whole reboot is about. I just think unmarrying Supes does little or nothing to correct the real problem: how do you make this guy relevant again in an age of humanly flawed superheroes without making him not-Superman?
@conor – Yes, but as I said above, the humanity of Supes, Bats, Wonder Woman… they’re all just retcons that weren’t part of the original characters, so that element of the character can sometimes feel really tacked-on, like an afterthought.
PS – There’s a Peter David-penned short prose story called “The Archetype” from years back that does a BRILLIANT job in breaking down (and apart) the relationship between Superman, Lois Lane, and the world at large. If you’ve never read it, do yourself a favor and track it down. You won’t be sorry.
@RaceMcCloud You make a great point about the personas of DC’s ‘big three’ Their main identity is the hero and not the person. This might even be able to be extended to GL as well. About the only main DC guy that this does not apply to is Flash.
Contrasted with Marvel where Bruce is trying to escape the Hulk, the FF does not even have hero personas, same as the X-men, Spidey is just as you mentioned, and Thor doesn’t really count (no real alternate persona). Cap is the only one in the main Marvel where the hero is bigger than the man, which is interesting because he is all about being the best person.
Jim- I agree that Clarke could benefit from the single life.
that it could introduce some character dev that is Much needed.
But with all due respect I read your case for one more day and apart from a Lot of analogies and personal metaphors I don’t see any logic illustrated that says any of the brand new day stories would not have been any worse or better with him being married.
It was and remains a gimmick. All of the post bnd stories were good bc of the team that was assembled to write them. Period.
And frankly I could do with ought ever having met Carly so no score there.
I just don’t see anything plot wise that has happened bc he was single and not bc half of marvels top talent was locked in a room together with a mission.
Show me that and I might reconsider.
@MisterJ – Totally agree about the Flash. And I think it’s because he’s clearly not as “all-powerful” as the big three. And I was JUST THINKING about Cap… he’s the one big Marvel guy, seemingly, NOT designed by Stan Lee who is actually a relic of those old golden-age days, like the big DC heroes… and he’s the one Marvel guy who is most like those big DC heroes. GREAT point(s).
the great love triangles have two people in them.
shakespeare ect.
cant wait to have real superman back
@RaceMcCloud I think that you are correct about Cap. It’s gotta be a by-product of the times. But I really think that the Marvel ‘style’ has been working on fitting the ‘man’ in better as time has gone on. It hasn’t really caught on with us, as long time readers, but I think that it will shine through in the movie. I think it is going to demonstrate to the general public that what makes Cap great is who he is and not what he can do. Well, at least I hope so.
Ending Spider-Man’s marriage has made Amazing Spider-Man a very entertainging book and has worked wonders for the character. I haven’t read it this long ever.
@RaceMcCloud Again, you’re working form a flawed premise which has now been narrowed from “DC characters are not relatable” to “Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman” are not relatable. You might not relate to those three characters and that’s fine. But that only makes them unrelatable to you. Superman and Batman are two characters I relate to the most in comics. It doesn’t matter if Bruce is the mask and Batman is the real thing, he’s still a person. He’s still got problems; he still feels the pain of loss. Would it help you if you called him Bruce all the time?
The idea that Superman is a an unrelatable character because he is all powerful is, to me, preposterous. That’s what makes him such a great character in the first place. He has all of this great power and yet he still feels lonely and isolated. He doesn’t rule the planet with an iron fist and impost his will, he wants everyone to be the best they can be on their own. He has family and friends and he wants Lois to love the man and not the logo on his chest. And yet for all the richness in his life he will never not feel the pain of knowing that is parents and his home world are all dead. He carries a heavy burden of responsibility. The idea that Superman is boring just because he can bend steel with his bare hands seems to be held by people who are missing the point of Superman entirely.
@MisterJ – I think Marvel’s done a very, very good job in making the man behind Captain America relatable, and that they’ve been successful in that moreso than DC has been with Superman. But it helps that Cap isn’t their biggest iconic character and they’ve been able to tinker with him while not as many eyes have been on him… and it also helps, I think, that they were able to launch Ultimate Cap ten years ago and do what they pleased with him, eventually taking the best conflicted things out of that character and easing them into 616 Cap. Best thing they did was recognize the world had moved on without Captain America, and that he was (literally and creatively) a man out of the past, and felt free to pass the mantle on to Bucky Cap, who could be a Cap for a more modern age. You can point to Marvel’s handling of Captain America over the past 10 years as the textbook example of how to take an icon and humanize him while still allowing him to be an icon. It’s why I so loved Dick Grayson and Damian Wayne as Batman and Robin. They were still icons with all the appropriate weight attached to their personas, but they were fresh and new icons for a new world… and unlike Azrael-Bat (a textbook example of how NOT to do it, along with electric Supes), Dick and Damian felt like they belonged. (Let’s also remember that Cap and Batman & Robin were updated by ridiculously talented writers. That always helps.)
You definitely hit many angry fan girl notes with me on this one, but I’ll try to suppress them and say that to alter Superman or “humanize” him in the ways you suggested would fundamentally dismantle the character. The problem of Superman’s reliability is a real problem, but it comes from the execution of the character and not the character itself. In his preface to Paradise Lost C.S. Lewis wrote:
” In all but a few writers the ‘good’ characters are the least successful, and every one who has ever tried to make even the humblest story aught to know why. To make a character worse than oneself it is only necessary to release imaginatively from control some of the bad passions which, in real life, are always straining the leash …. But if you try to draw a character better than yourself, all you can do is take the best moments you’ve had and to imagine them prolonged and more consistently embodied in action. But the real high virtues which we do not possess at all, we cannot depict except in purely external fashion. ” 28 28This is the underlying problem in writing Superman, and it’s an argument that I have made repeatedly, so I’m sorry if it sounds a little canned. To do anything to “humanize” Supes would not humanize him, it would just make him more flawed. While that is more relatable that should not be our standards of human. He’s a real challenge to writers — probably the hardest hero out there to write — but when he’s done well he is exactly what he should be: an emblem. Superman is a paragon, and writing paragons well is hard — but I don’t believe he should be dismantled for it. It is our challenge to relate to Superman, not his to become “bad enough” for us. People recommend All-Star to you because it does this. So, for that matter, does New Frontier, and Kryptonite by Darwyn Cooke, or Last Son and Braniac by Geoff Johns.
As for him and Lois: falling in love is a good story. And as for Race’s argument: Whatever is ret-conned or not, the characters are very human, and the big three are very human. Retroactive continuity is a brilliant way to keep characters relevant, so I don’t really understand the Original-Shape argument at all.
Sorry this got so long, and I’m very sorry this is unproof-read!
— Sera
Also, sorry about the line breaks, I don’t know how those 28s got there, it was supposed to be a new paragraph!
Superman should play the field
@conor – I’d never think Batman is boring. I love Batman. And DC (thank you, Neal Adams and Bruce Timm) managed to rescue him from the 30’s and 50’s better than they’ve managed with Superman. (Although, let’s face it, the Batman that an entire generation knows is not the comic book Batman, it’s the BTAS Batman.)
And I don’t think Superman is boring because he can bend steel with his bare hands. In fact, I never said he’s unrelateable because he’s all-powerful. I think that’s fascinating, if used properly. He’s boring because DC has put him in a corner where they can’t use their all-powerful character in a dramatically satisfying manner.
Where’s the extended successful Superman run of the last thirty years? That run of books that’s just three, four, five years of great storytelling? Does it exist? Maybe you know and I don’t; nobody’s every been able to hold my interest in Superman, and they should be able to because he’s the single greatest superhero character every created, THE genre-defining character. If Superman is so relatable to the modern reader, why can’t these great, great comic writers who’ve taken shots at him unsolve the riddle of Superman? And where are the stories that really get into the pathos you’ve described above? I think you’re describing your idealized version of Superman, and it sounds like it would make for a very interesting run of stories, but I don’t think it’s a version we’ve actually seen over an extended period or a version that DC can actually market anymore because, again, they’ve painted themselves into an editorial corner with the character.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’d be a lot more interested in Superman if the mainstream version of him had stronger echoes of the Darwyn Cooke version from “New Frontier”, or of Frank Miller’s “All-Star” version. (Same goes for Wonder Woman.)
I’m also going to challenge the idea that I’m working from a flawed premise. I’m working from the published history of these characters. I’m working with a premise you DISAGREE with, perhaps, or that you don’t care for, but it’s not flawed.
@RaceMcCloud It is a flawed premise. You said:
“DC characters are gods, and who cares about the personal lives/secret identities of gods? Marvel characters are human beings, and often their behind-the-mask problems are more interesting than their in-the-mask problems, and they’ll even go whole issues barely getting in costume (see: Ultimate Spider-Man).”
That is a flawed premise as it does not relate to reality.
@Serabird – I agree: Geoff Johns’ ‘Brainiac’ arc was the first in-continuity Superman story in a long time that I really dug, and that I felt ‘got it’ (no accident that ‘Green Lantern: Rebirth’ is the perfect example of re-establishing the core elements of a classic character in the fashion of modern storytelling)… but then DC went and had some huge mega-event and I lost interest. But that’s a different discussion…
But you present some contradiction here. You argue that Superman is an “emblem” and a “paragon”, and the best stories are the ones that recognize and embrace this. But then in the next paragraph you argue that retcons have made him “human”, when you argued earlier that humanizing him was a mistake. So which is it?
My argument is that the most interesting Superman stories are the ones that would put at odds those two elements: the paragon versus the human. But that DC doesn’t do that often enough. I’d also say that centuries of drama have shown us that the most interesting characters are the flawed characters, and that a flawless character is one best admired from afar. If Superman is to be “flawless”, than I’m afraid he just won’t make for an interesting protagonist. Centuries of storytelling would seem to agree with that idea. (Now, the tale of an all-powerful hero who STRUGGLES with the burden of that power… well, it’s worked out well enough for Spider-Man over the years, and maybe it’s time Supes was written more overtly that way.)
And yes: falling in love is ALWAYS a good story. ;^) So there’s something to be said for the breaking apart of the marriage on that end.
You’ve stirred up quite the bee’s nest, Jimski, if that nest was full of nerds instead of bees, of course
@conor – I’ll say this: people cared very much about the personal lives of gods thousands of years ago. That’s almost all storytelling was, thousands of years ago. This is not thousands of years ago, anymore. We want to see humanity in protagonists now, and the old-school heroes were designed (as @serabird says) as emblems and paragons. That’s just not what modern storytelling is about anymore. Certainly not in THIS country; we’re all about the underdog now.
Again, my premise isn’t flawed. You just don’t agree with it. I’ve never argued that Superman is an unfixable character, or a terminally uninteresting/unrelateable one. I’ve argued that DC is in a position where, editorially, they can’t allow themselves to present him in such a way that he completely appeals to the modern reader, because they can’t allow themselves to turn him into something that is NOT “Superman”. I think “Superman” could be the most interesting comic book on the market today… if DC was in a place where they could actually let a creative team cut loose with him. But how many “Superman” pitches do you think get rejected because DC editorial says, “That’s not ‘Superman’?”
Look, you follow this stuff closer than I do, so maybe you an answer me this and shut me up: when’s the last time that a monthly Superman title that wasn’t a tie-in to a mega-even was a regular Top 10 book? Top 20? Even Top 30? That means something. It means that a modern audience is either reading Superman and relating to him… or they aren’t. And he should be a monthly fixture in the Top 10.
My original point, way back when? Marrying/unmarrying Supes isn’t the biggest issue facing the success of that particular character going forward.
@edward – I imagine that nest would be full of Mountain Dew and buffalo wings, and have at least one black light and/or lava lamp. And a sweet HD set-up with broadband play for all. And wi-fi.
@RaceMcCloud Again, and for the last time, your premise that
“DC characters are gods, and who cares about the personal lives/secret identities of gods? Marvel characters are human beings, and often their behind-the-mask problems are more interesting than their in-the-mask problems, and they’ll even go whole issues barely getting in costume (see: Ultimate Spider-Man).”
is factually incorrect. There is no difference NOW (not in the 1960s, not 1,000 years ago) between the way Marvel and DC characters are portrayed.
@conor – If you believe that, I have no idea what to tell you.
I’m saying we have a difference of opinion. You’re saying I’m flat-out wrong and you’re flat-our write, while completely ignoring my key points. All I’m saying is one of us is open to actual discussion/debate, and one of us runs a comic-book website.
Er… “right”.
@RaceMcCloud I am open to debate, but I cannot debate points that are brought forth from a premise so far from reality.
Superman has a lot of problems, but being married isn’t one.
Relationship status is a story feature; a writer who can’t handle it is a shitty writer. Doesn’t matter if the character is Superman or Spider-man.
If you’re looking for a long run of great Superman titles, I would say 1986-1994 had very few missteps, and yes, that includes the Doomsday ark, because the Death was the shorter catalyst for Funeral for a Friend (which is excellent) and The Reign of Superman which sparked two years of excellent quality stories (until just after Death of Clark Kent). I have every single issue of every single Superman comic published since CoIE.
There are several things that give this era an edge, but none more so than it’s publishing schedule. It really felt like one continuous story, with only a few exceptions there weren’t “series” or “arcs.” It was just an ongoing drama that went from one week to the next, much like good serialized TV, and if there was a dud of an issue you only had a week to dwell on it before something else happened to change the mix. Part of the reason that Grounded is so damn terrible (it is, in my opinion, the worst Superman story I’ve ever read) is that we’re on the 13th month of this. If Grounded were written in 1997, it would have ended in three months and we would have had a dozen other stories, almost all of which would have an equal focus on the extended family of characters.
As for the marriage, I was happy for it when it happened, but I wouldn’t be sad if they weren’t together for a while. Since the September relaunch seems to be less and less like a reboot, I really would like to see the marriage acknowledged to some degree, just like we know Red Robin was still Bruce Wayne’s sidekick and The Killing Joke actually happened to Batgirl. If Lois and Clark must seperate, USE THAT to drive the story. Have them seperate/divorce.
I don’t see why more can’t be added to the tapestry without having to unwind the other end of it.
@RaceMcCloud You’re footing this on an incorrect premise that Gods=No Personal lives. Look at Graeco-Roman, Egyptian or Norse mythology and you have Gods with complex backstories, genealogies, relationships and marriages.
He should be younger. If Superman was such an unrelatable character I’m sure he’d have gone away a LONG time ago.
@Conor. I’m sorry I didn’t make it clear. But I meant that humaniziing Superman by adding flaws or making him act in a way that counteracts the nature of his embelamtic status is not the way to make Superman relatable. Humanizing a character doesn’t necessarily mean the author should put the character in a position where he doesn’t do the right thing, but rather he should put the reader in a situation where they are inside the character and completely understand and emphathise with his motivation. Grounded is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. I’ve read issue after issue of Superman acting out of character and in a very flawed manner, and I can’t relate to it at all. He bitched out Lois, he’s afraid of the internet, I’m still not sure what he did at that factory, and he tried to out race the Flash… All of these are to different degrees morally questionable things to do, but it in no way makes Superman more relatable. Even when it was explained that the cause of all of this was grief, a cause that made all of his actions make sense in retrospect, I closed that issue and I thought: what a wasted opportunity. Superman is my favorite chracter in the DCU, and I didn’t feel close to him at all.
In short — clearly I’m bad at short — Superman being humanized does not require him to sacrafice his status as a paragon of morality goodness, and if that is DC’s angle in breaking him and Lois up — which I doubt it is — then it is ultimately undermining the fundement of his character.
Also, I totally love watching him struggle with who he is, and if DC ever hires me when I’m all grown up and graduated, I will do that to him time and time again.
@race, sorry. I thought that was conor. My internet’s wonky.
I’m excited at the story possibilities this will open up…
I dont know what this is. If this is supposed to be a humorous piece, it fails. If it was supposed to present an non-fan point if view, it failed.
No, predicting this comment does not make the piece any less pointless.
I guess you guys should mention it’s an op-ed, not a news post, in the title. Especially since I read this on my cell phone, and could not tell that it was Jimski’s weekly piece.
I feel like in order to be truly contemporary Superman has to marry both Lois Lane AND Lana Lang. Of course, when that happnens, we have to take a good look at ourselves and then perhaps a shower or two.
@PraxJarvin I do not believe that he is. He is riffing off of the Greek god idea, yes. But more in how the gods could transmute and walk the earth. They came down and intermingled with us humans, but, as you say, they actually had lives while gods. Zeus would come down, and he would meander around and meet up with women, but his real life was as a god. This is what I took from it. Similar to how Morrison set up the JLA back during his famous run as the pantheon of Greek gods. The humanity is something that is easier shed to get back to being their ‘real’ persona.
As opposed to Marvel, where the stories are more about how the (hu)man deals with having these powers.
Whether this is what correct or not can be debated, but I am pretty sure this is where Race was going.
@conor i think the premise in question is the debate. you are not debating his premise, you are dismissing it. You are merely stating that it is untrue. If it is as far removed from reality as you suggest, its hould be easy to point out those errors. While i don’t entirely buy the premise, its not “factually incorrect” there are no facts here, but reader interpretations. We all get different things out of this.
@abstractgeek No, there is no debate. The idea that Marvel and DC characters are written differently was true in the 1960s. It is demonstrably untrue in 2011.
I think DC and Marvel write their characters in very different ways.
Marvel writers tries to bring it down to reality. I mean heroes like Spider-Man, Luke Cage, Iron Man, Iron Fist, Fantastic Four; and others either have family issues or even financial issues to worry about. (With both Iron Man/Fist worrying about their own companies)
While DC seems to give their characters a more ‘God’ like presence. Superman is practically a god at this point with his unbelievable power set and almost immortality. Wonder Woman was created by gods. Plus one of Morrison’s big themes in his Batman run is how much of a God Batman is and how he can easily defeat them. When it isn’t the big three, the other superheroes barely seem to have a social life unlike in Marvel. (Except for Stephanie Brown, who feels more like a Marvel character then a DC character)
To state that they aren’t written differently in 2011 is very inaccurate to say.
I gotta agree with Conor on this one. Sorry, but RaceMcCloud was the first to present his opinion as fact, before the debate even started.. and then everyone kinda piles up on one side and Conor gets accused of doing the same thing? I have the feeling its mostly because of the classic “you’re either one or the other” Marvel vs DCU debate that just doesn’t work any more. I lean to the DC side, but come on.. any DC fan who read the Abnett/Lanning Marvel cosmic books, or Hickman’s FF and didn’t appreciate them is probably in denial. To keep that archaic framework of “Marvel Universe is ________ and DC Universe is _________” as the foundation of your comic enjoyment isn’t giving ANY comic creator/writer/artist/character/title a fair shake..on either side. It’s just not there unless you inject it yourself. It will completely color your experience to decide to dismiss something before you read it.
Yeah, the “god” Superman existed in the DC universe, but he was Kal-L, not the modern Kal-El, and he died. DC not only retconned Superman, but separated one version from the other and killed the first one! Golden age Bruce died decades before that, even. Infinite Crisis was an in-your-face demonstration of DC putting the golden age deities to rest. It was so blatant that it flirted with being heavy handed, even.
I also have to agree that whether a hero is an alien, magician, radioactive teenager, or even a god or goddess, each is still a “person”.. “Humanity” is a word that humans have applied to a universally shared experience of “persons”, human or otherwise. DC’s writers have done a great job of demonstrating that.