Steven Grant's Superman Essay

Bob · 05 Aug 2004

I usually read Steven's Grant's "Permanent Damage" column at Comic Book Resources. I don't agree with Grant on everything, but he's unquestionably a smart guy and has some interesting views.

Super heroes is one area where I often disagree with Grant. Grant really doesn't like them (He keeps insisting that that isn't true, but many of his remarks show differently, imo). This week, he commented on SUPERMAN RETURNS (which he admits he hasn't seen), and some of his assertions made me think, a little.

(Here's the actual column, if anyone wants to see it: http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/?column=10 )

Steven Grant wrote:

The reviews have been ambivalent as well. Virtually everyone noted it was an "homage" to the 1977 Richard Donner SUPERMAN, though whether it was an improvement, a modernization, or a knockoff appears subject to debate. More than a few noted the Christian allegory infused into the material. Others noted something a lot of Superman fans just don't want to recognize: Superman is no longer enough.

The Donner film was launched with the tagline "You'll believe a man can fly." A friend of mine said the theme of the new film was "You'll believe a man can lift heavy things." When SUPERMAN was released, superhero films were a rare thing, and even then watching someone flying on a movie screen wasn't that big a deal, but we were willing to ignore that, just for the novelty of Superman. What you saw of the character in the media was most the relatively inept SUPERFRIENDS style cartoons; to the general population, the film version did genuinely round out and humanize the character some. But now superhero films are fairly common, and no longer stigmatized; watching a character fly is nothing compared to watching a character fly while on fire! (Hawkman, in the comics, fell victim to a similar trend; when Hawkman began, the idea of someone flying like a bird was still a relative novelty, but by the time Hawkman returned in the '60s, there were very few characters who didn't fly and the character never again achieved the popularity it had known in the 1940s. Or Ant-Man, who was never very popular and had, as John Belushi disdainfully put it on a SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE, "the proportional strength of a human!") The ante has upped. Even strictly on the terms of the character, Superman has had a great run in various SUPERMAN and JUSTICE LEAGUE cartoons; any film version has to live up to perceptions of them as well, and those were far more sophisticated versions of the character than have even appeared in most recent comics.

Some good points here. The "Superman is no longer enough" idea has arguably been somewhat true since the Golden Age. He was the first super hero, and it was originally quite a novelty. People tuned in to see Superman acting super. I'm sure that that got a little old after awhile, and perhaps that's why the writers kept finding new super powers for him.

Yeah, I know it seems silly to say that "Superman's not enough" when the character has endured for almost seventy years. Grant himself has argued previously that Superman has really "survived artifically" (I don't remember if he used those exact words, but that was the gist of his argument.). By this, he meant that DC kept Superman going even when his books sold at numbers that would have guaranteed cancellation for any other character. Of course, that, too, was a business decision on DC's part, so I suppose it wasn't truly artifical. If Superman has an immunity to cancellation, then perhaps it's because he earned it the old-fashioned way.

Grant makes another point up there that I also found interesting. He notes that the recent animated versions of Superman have been more sophisticated than the movies. I haven't seen much of those shows, but he's probably right. Hell, SMALLVILLE and the comics are usually more sophisticated than the movies. They give us weekly or monthly installments, though, so they have more room for stuff like character development. A summer blockbuster serves a different purpose.

Now, discussion topic #2:

Steven Grant wrote:

The problem with Superman is that the character really doesn't make any sense. Oh, at the core he does: an orphan using his extraordinary abilities to protect his adoptive home. There's an emotional tug there that's simple to grasp. But no one seems to have any faith in that core anymore. What creators in particular fix on is the trappings. And the trappings are what don't make sense, particularly to the young. Why on earth does Superman need a costume? Answer: he doesn't. Why does Superman need a secret identity? Answer: he doesn't. I know a lot of Superman fans out there are now shrieking "Objection! Asked and answered, your honor!" because comics have answered questions like these time and time again, but the problem there is that the answers make no sense. Superman hears a cry for help, and pauses from the rescue to change clothes! He needs a secret identity so he can live "a normal life"? Why would he want to? He's Superman. So he, as reporter Clark Kent, can stay on top of the news so Superman knows where all the emergencies are? Like Clark Kent covers all that? So he can fairly win Lois Lane's heart? But he's really Superman! Why does he insist she fall for his cover story? Why would he even want to take the time off from being Superman? Isn't Superman supposed to be out there helping people?

Conversely, Batman makes sense, even now. He wants to avenge his parents' death. He dresses as Batman because the costume scares criminals and adds to his mystique. Spider-Man makes sense. He's a neurotic college kid who suddenly gains strange powers and realizes their potential for screwing up his life but feels a responsibility to use them, so he creates a second identity for himself. But Superman doesn't need any of that. He's Superman, and the trappings that weigh him down were really little considered Jerry Siegel cribs from his source materials, like dual identity of THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL, if not much later additions by other hands.

Grant's somewhat right here, but he's also dead wrong. I'd agree that the character doesn't make sense logically. However, I think that he does make sense mythologically.

I've said many times that Superman was born great, Batman worked to become great, and Spider-Man had greatness thrust upon him. In Superman's case, that means that he's basically the "god who comes to Earth and takes human form." This interpretation probably works better when Clark Kent is the disguise and Superman is the real persona. (Note that Singer plays it that way, and that his movie has obvious religious symbolism.) I've been more convinced lately, though, that that doesn't have to be the case. On SMALLVILLE, Clark Kent is the real - and only - persona, yet the viewers are continually reminded that he's "destined for great things." The point is that he's lived among humans and has been raised as one but is still basically "greater than us." Even if Clark Kent is the real persona, that basic concept can still be true.

I don't agree with Grant that Batman and Spider-Man somehow do make sense. Batman dresses as a bat to scare criminals, but ...come on, how scary is a guy in a bat costume? Meanwhile, Spider-Man's a scientific genius who can't make any money!

The problem is that a lot of these characters kind of evolve out of their origins. Superman made more logical sense when his powers weren't quite so godlike. Spider-Man made more logical sense when he was a nerdy high school student, rather than a twentysomething adult. The Fantastic Four made more logical sense when Reed Richards wasn't a super genius who'd never go out into space in an unshielded rocket ship. C'est la vie.

Steven Grant wrote:

But way too many people, particularly within the comics community, identify Superman with his trappings and consider them immutable, and those trappings are no longer relevant. They're just confusing, and where they may once have given the character the sense of a more "real" existence, today the effect is the opposite.

Which is, perhaps, why some fans and creators have spent the past few years beating to death the idea of Superman as Christ allegory, which apparently strongly surfaces in the new film via Superman's dad, Jor-El, a long dead disembodied voice who now no longer sent his "only son" to Earth because that was the only available planet with humanoid life his telescope could find, but to "save" them - and, of course, ala the 1992 "Death of Superman" arc, which started up a lot of this nonsense, his apparent death seems to cast the world into darkness until he rises to fulfill his mission of earthly salvation. Good god, literally. For Christians, isn't this new identification of Superman with Christ a bit, um, blasphemous? (Not that he's the only heavy-handed Christ analog floating around comics in the last couple decades, by a long shot, and the whole bit is more than a little tired.) And why would anyone who's not a Christian have even the slightest interest in this?

Anyway, if Jerry Siegel had any Biblical analogies in mind for Superman, it was almost surely Moses, cast incognito down the Nile to adoption as a baby to save his life and let him grow to be a man of greatness, than Jesus. And maybe he just shares Moses' destiny as well: to deliver his people to the Promised Land, but be unable to enter himself.

Again, more interesting points.

Why would anyone who's not a Christian have any interest in this? Hey, do you have to be an astronaut to like STAR TREK? I'm not a Christian, but I still find the ideas interesting sometimes. The mind's gotta play.

Grant has a good point about the analogy morphing from Moses to Christ, though. I guess that's what happens when a character created by Jews lands in the hands of Gentiles.

Linda · **Posted:** Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:36 pm

Bump for our newer members.

Steven Clubb · 01 Mar 2005

I think if you look at Smallville you see what Grant's driving at. He operates in secret because he doesn't want to be treated as a freak, and they eliminated the costume... and even though there still a lot of elements you have to look the other way for, it ends up making a lot of sense. He desperately wants to tell others his secret, but he's afraid they might see him differently... which is something everyone can relate to. If you added the costume, I think the whole structure would fall on itself almost instantly.

Rob Steinbrenner · **Joined:** 05 Jun 2006 **Posts:** 49778

I don't really agree with him at all.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Steven Grant wrote:

The reviews have been ambivalent as well. Virtually everyone noted it was an "homage" to the 1977 Richard Donner SUPERMAN, though whether it was an improvement, a modernization, or a knockoff appears subject to debate. More than a few noted the Christian allegory infused into the material. Others noted something a lot of Superman fans just don't want to recognize: Superman is no longer enough.

The Donner film was launched with the tagline "You'll believe a man can fly." A friend of mine said the theme of the new film was "You'll believe a man can lift heavy things." When SUPERMAN was released, superhero films were a rare thing, and even then watching someone flying on a movie screen wasn't that big a deal, but we were willing to ignore that, just for the novelty of Superman. What you saw of the character in the media was most the relatively inept SUPERFRIENDS style cartoons; to the general population, the film version did genuinely round out and humanize the character some. But now superhero films are fairly common, and no longer stigmatized; watching a character fly is nothing compared to watching a character fly while on fire!

Yeah, but Superman has the advantage of a name-brand -- the name "Superman" will command a certain amount of public interest and people will expect the film to be one of the big blockbusters of the year.

However, he's right that it's not enough to be a huge Pirates of Caribbean or Iron Man level of hit movie; only good word of mouth and a movie that hits the right notes for the modern audience can accomplish that.

Steven Grant wrote:

The problem with Superman is that the character really doesn't make any sense. Oh, at the core he does: an orphan using his extraordinary abilities to protect his adoptive home. There's an emotional tug there that's simple to grasp. But no one seems to have any faith in that core anymore. What creators in particular fix on is the trappings. And the trappings are what don't make sense, particularly to the young. Why on earth does Superman need a costume? Answer: he doesn't. Why does Superman need a secret identity? Answer: he doesn't. I know a lot of Superman fans out there are now shrieking "Objection! Asked and answered, your honor!" because comics have answered questions like these time and time again, but the problem there is that the answers make no sense. Superman hears a cry for help, and pauses from the rescue to change clothes! He needs a secret identity so he can live "a normal life"? Why would he want to? He's Superman. So he, as reporter Clark Kent, can stay on top of the news so Superman knows where all the emergencies are? Like Clark Kent covers all that? So he can fairly win Lois Lane's heart? But he's really Superman! Why does he insist she fall for his cover story? Why would he even want to take the time off from being Superman? Isn't Superman supposed to be out there helping people?

Conversely, Batman makes sense, even now. He wants to avenge his parents' death. He dresses as Batman because the costume scares criminals and adds to his mystique. Spider-Man makes sense. He's a neurotic college kid who suddenly gains strange powers and realizes their potential for screwing up his life but feels a responsibility to use them, so he creates a second identity for himself. But Superman doesn't need any of that. He's Superman, and the trappings that weigh him down were really little considered Jerry Siegel cribs from his source materials, like dual identity of THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL, if not much later additions by other hands.

Yeah, but no superhero really holds up to this kind of scrutiny -- how could the police not figure out Batman is Bruce Wayne or at least sponsored by him? Something like "the tumbler" would be worked on by a giant team of Wayne Tech employees and be seen by military officials working in L&D -- using that machine alone would get him caught in short order. He'd be constantly getting caught up in that cape as well -- the whole idea of waging a war on crime under the noses of the law with boomerangs and gas capsules is ludicrous when given any type of scrutiny.

Also, Spider-Man wearing a costume makes no more sense than Superman -- Spider-Man is usually a fugitive from the law and wearing that consistent outfit to every "crime" he commits just adds to his rap sheet. Also, what purpose does it even serve? It doesn't put fear into the hearts of anyone and attracts way more attention that you'd imagine he wants. And since he's always so desperate for cash, especially to help his financially troubled Aunt May, why wouldn't he just start an NBA career and rake in millions on top of millions?

And the scenario that Superman "hears a cry for help, and pauses from the rescue to change clothes!" can be applied to every superhero from Spider-Man to Green Lantern to whoever -- any superhero with a secret identity has to "change clothes" to leap into action.

The idea that Superman assumes the Clark Kent identity to live a normal life away from being Superman, responsible for the lives of millions and a celebrity who wouldn't get even a moment's peace, would seem pretty reasonable to a general audience. Also, the whole "my enemies would strike at me through the ones I love" has been acceptable for years because it just makes sense.

The short of it is that superheoes in general don't make any sense -- just like most summer blockbuster movies and hit television shows. Most winners of American Idol don't become successful recording artists; yet people act as if winning matters. People go on the Bachelor to find "true love" as if having an elimination tournament is the way to do that; it still brings in big ratings. Christ, have you seen most action films?

Even "realistic" superhero films like The Dark Knight makes no real sense when put to the test -- where the fuck is the FBI here? Why go down in the tunnel when moving Harvey Dent just because a firey car is blocking your lane? The other lane is completely open and the streets have been closed off. Just go around that shit. Also, how the hell did they not know about a car burning until then? Why didn't one of the cops blocking off the streets call it in? Why didn't the helicopter see it coming from a mile away?

None of it makes sense but people are willing to go along with whatever as long as it's entertaining.

The real problem is that Superman is seen as "uncool" by a lot of people -- change their minds on that and they'll go along with glasses as a secret identity or whatever nonsense you throw at them.

Rafael · 03 Dec 2006

Yes, Steven. Bruce Wayne dressing as big fruity blue bat with a big cape and a mask with no peripheral vision makes perfect sense to fight hardened criminals.

Unlike Superman, for whom using a costume is so full of stupid.

Rafael · 03 Dec 2006

Bob wrote:

Grant has a good point about the analogy morphing from Moses to Christ, though. I guess that's what happens when a character created by Jews lands in the hands of Gentiles.

The change of the analogy was made by Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewitz, both Jewish.

Cue Doot.

Rick Lundeen · 04 Oct 2004

Grant's a bit of an idiot there. A lot of his reasoning is like that of Lex Luthor, who---according to Byrne---couldn't imagine that Superman would ever need a secret ID. Neither of them understand that Clark was brought up right by the Kents. Plus, not finding out that he's this whole other person until he was in his teens---you don't just abandon who you've been suddenly, unless you're a total a-hole and Clark's not.

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Rafael wrote:

Bob wrote:

Grant has a good point about the analogy morphing from Moses to Christ, though. I guess that's what happens when a character created by Jews lands in the hands of Gentiles.

The change of the analogy was made by Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewitz, both Jewish.

Cue Doot.

I enjoy being cued, but I'm not sure what I am supposed to say.

Is this about my militant anti-Semitic stance?

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

Oh!

"It's ironic, in a way."

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

(I can't believe you tricked me into revealing my militant anti-Semitism.)

Rafael · 03 Dec 2006

Ocean Doot wrote:

Oh!

"It's ironic, in a way."

Ocean Doot wrote:

(I can't believe you tricked me into revealing my militant anti-Semitism.)

My job here is done.

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

I thought at one point I was supposed to say something about how Edward DeVere was a Christian, and he's the guy who really created Superman.

Rafael · 03 Dec 2006

I don't think that has been proven.

Ocean Doot · 25 Oct 2007

No, but it seems pretty likely.

Steve · 21 Oct 2004

Then Edward DeVere is a complete asshole.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

Rick Lundeen wrote:

Grant's a bit of an idiot there. A lot of his reasoning is like that of Lex Luthor, who---according to Byrne---couldn't imagine that Superman would ever need a secret ID. Neither of them understand that Clark was brought up right by the Kents. Plus, not finding out that he's this whole other person until he was in his teens---you don't just abandon who you've been suddenly, unless you're a total a-hole and Clark's not.

Even if you take all of that out, the whole "portect my friends and family" thing is the standard reason for having a secret identity. Combine that with a need for privacy (I mean, if Superman actually existed, people would be up his ass 24/7) and it makes perfect sense for him to have a secret identity.

Uncle Twitchy · **Joined:** 28 Nov 2006 **Posts:** 30520

Hanzo the Razor wrote:

Rick Lundeen wrote:

Grant's a bit of an idiot there. A lot of his reasoning is like that of Lex Luthor, who---according to Byrne---couldn't imagine that Superman would ever need a secret ID. Neither of them understand that Clark was brought up right by the Kents. Plus, not finding out that he's this whole other person until he was in his teens---you don't just abandon who you've been suddenly, unless you're a total a-hole and Clark's not.

Even if you take all of that out, the whole "portect my friends and family" thing is the standard reason for having a secret identity. Combine that with a need for privacy (I mean, if Superman actually existed, people would be up his ass 24/7) and it makes perfect sense for him to have a secret identity.

His "fortress of solitude", if you will. :shush:

luelyron · 07 Dec 2007

You've hit on why "Identity Crisis" Spider-Man stories with the four identities made some sense, in principle, for the "rap sheet" argument. After all, how many writers have suited up a crook as Spidey or whoever hero?

What purpose does it serve, though? It's a second skin I can...um, one can shed, to get back to one's private life. People often fear or hate that second skin...but, being Peter Parker, he often gets enough humiliation just being Pete.

In his case, Spidey designed his costume for show biz. For the media, it's a great idea as a visual, even if it looked like mud in
b & w photos in the Bugle. i can agree that a character may diverge from their original intentions, though, and as he is not currently in showbiz or taking photos of himself, discarding it makes sense until...well, you answered this one yourself: "protect my loved ones" and "Keep my ass people-free 24/7" (unless invited).

Superman, especially, is a conceptual being that most people don't know from his stories, in particular, nor do they discuss
his stories in any medium so much as joke or daydream with the idea. Right?

There's jokes and pron, but I think the Batman daydream certainly does jibe with the idea "crime fighting."

Spider-Man? You know, I've had lots of day dreams just about him travelling about the city, especially as time went on, rather than day dreaming about him fighting crime.

To me.

Monk · 19 Jun 2006

I think the mid-level powered Man of Steel Superman is a mistake, at this point. There's little that he can do that other superheroes can't (making him seem a bit less than "super"), and his personality is generally still the generic DC Silver Age hero persona. I think the character's the most interesting with one of two takes. Either going back to the early, less-powered incarnation, complete with the social crusader personality and MO, or ratcheting up the power levels to what they were pre-Crisis and giving him a bit of the superior alien personality (as Morrison did in All-Star Superman). Either one helps to make the character stand out from the crowd.

Hanzo the Razor · 24 Jun 2007

I don't think Superman's current personality is the Silver Age persona, I think it's the generic Peter Parker persona -- "I'm just trying to best I can as a humble, regular guy."

Steven Grant's Superman Essay

Who is WANline