Nick Costanzo
Oct 8, 2007, 10:41 pm
* * * Comixfan Forums THREAD * * *
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
THREAD : ONE-SHOTS #17: MAYBE THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN AFTER ALL
Started at Aug 26, 2006 05:30 pm by raul grau
Visit at http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=39976
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Post 1]
Author : raul grau
Date : Aug 26, 2006 05:30 pm
Title : ONE-SHOTS #17: MAYBE THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN AFTER ALL
<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/oneshots1.jpg" hspace=10 align=left border=0 alt="One-Shots logo">By Mike Sangregorio, darquehex@gmail.com
Maybe This Is A Job For Superman After All
In our "real world," those that inspire us, our supposed heroes, are more often than not few and far between. In worlds where there are men, women, and occasionally animals with great physical and mental strength, the title of "hero" is tossed around more than irradiated arachnids. Having been given great power, instead of horrible disfigurement or cancer, what then is the difference between a super-powered individual and a superhero? To answer this, it might be a good idea to try and understand where exactly our idea of a "super" hero comes from. After seven issues of "Earth-2-Kal-L" in Infinite Crisis and the almost entertaining Superman Returns, it would seem that the world is ready to reexamine what it likes about Superman.
Who was Clark Kent to bound into Metropolis, calling himself a hero? Was he not a Nietzsche-esque copy of Philip Wylie's Gladiator in a gaudy circus outfit? What defines a hero has always varied from culture to culture, but in America, heroes had been warriors, idealistic highwaymen, and occasionally vigilantes who took the law into their own hands in an attempt to serve some loftier sets of moral ideals. Heroes fought the system and were ultimately remembered as good people. They inspired heroics in others, and would argue that one does not become a hero by simply stating it as fact. Superman has done all this and more, but why is it that this showman, this flamboyant tool of American commerce is not only still around today, but has come to personify America in more ways than most people are readily willing to admit?
One factor is the often overlooked, but basic tenet that Clark Kent is Superman. Since 1938 and without notable interruption, the two have been interchangeable. Superman is not a legacy or a mantle that has been bestowed onto different people. Love it or hate it, but Flash survived for decades only by having Jay Garrick begat Barry Allen who begat Wally West who begat Bart Allen. There has never been a real need, commercially or artistically, for Superman to become a legacy. Clark Kent was on the original Justice Society of America while also serving as a founding member of the Justice League of America. His success, along with that of only really Batman (whose mythos is its own beast), proved longer lasting than any single version of any character. This is especially important when remembering that Clark's alter ego was the inspiration for more than a few of the mystery men who came after him.
As a longtime fan of Green Lantern, it is easy for me to praise the ingenuity of so many writers who have contributed to his many incarnations, but in 1940 cartoonist Martin Nodell wrote what was essentially a revamp of Aladdin. Young "Alan" Scott, with his magic lamp and ring that granted him incredible powers, put on a cape, mask, and otherwise out of place ensemble to fight the good fight against evil men who would do wrong. It may be difficult to see, in light of decades of fantastic success and hard fought rationalizations, but this probably seems more than a bit out of place at the time. As was echoed in Michael Chabon's novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, characters such as Green Lantern, along with more others than I can really name here, were the results of creators wanting to earn a living doing what Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster eventually proved was successful. Again, this is both an in-continuity truth as well as being a practical origin for the explosion of super-powered-"heroes" that comic books saw.
Looking again at Batman, he became an archetype in and of himself regardless of the plot points borrowed from Zorro and pulp characters such as Black Bat and The Shadow. Regardless, it is Bruce Wayne's alter ego who is still in print today. This is a man who has more than once been forced to admit the glaring reality of his own mortality. He has had wards and other underage protégés running around since before he first crossed paths with The Man Who Laughs (or "Joker" as we have come to call him). Though partly a sales gimmick, as kid sidekicks seemed to have been en vogue back then, Robin also deadened the world to the fact that the standard of what made Batman a hero was the image of fear that he created.
Batman scared people into not wanting to do wrong, which is a concept that seems alien (no pun intended) to Superman. He has no legacy to continue or pass on, and most importantly of all, no mask. Clark Kent's ever increasing range of superhuman abilities mean that he is defined only by what he can do, not by how he makes himself seen. He is quite literally the "super" in superhero. He does not want to put fear into people. He wants to show them how they can do the right thing, and his powers afford him that luxury. People fear "The Batman", and criminals are wary of the various members of the Justice League, but Superman alone inspires greatness in others.
Kal-El is essentially a performer, who puts on his glasses and his costume of Clark Kent, as performed frighteningly well by actor Brandon Routh. He wants people to acknowledge Clark, but to truly pay attention to Superman. What then is he in the eyes of those that he claims to serve? Is his humanity a façade? Clark lacks the aura of impending emotional disaster that would make any other believable human with this much raw physical power a threat. It may be the case that the only way to understand Superman, and thus most of what comic book fans have come to title as superheroes, is to realize that, in the real world, we would have asked him lead us.
The idea of superheroes holding political office is currently the trendy plot point, with Rising Star's RavenShadow being elected PoDUS and Ex Machina's Mayor Mitchell Hundred, the idea first came to my attention in the original Squadron Supreme which had the Batman analog Nighthawk following suit. Series creator Mark Gruenwald seemed to consider this an in-character, natural extension of his career as a superhero. Why is it that Superman would not be the ideal candidate for a career as a politician? In continuity, he is nonchalantly given more power than the average President holds by being chairman of the Justice League. An overwhelming desire to keep stories out of the real world has kept Superman from not only taking his cause to the next level, but from actually making a difference in his world.
Joe Kelly's What's so funny about Truth, Justice & The American Way from Action Comics #775 had The Authority pastiche The Elite asking the Man of Steel questions such as these. As good as the story was, Superman spent most of the time defending his inaction, not really offering up a comparable course of action. This is not a prayer to the great gods of Time Warner that Superman start beheading anyone he disagrees with, but a plea that fans and creators alike better understand how he can become more than just a "politically neutral" tool of whoever holds the pen. It is time to ask that these superheroes once again do more than just entertain. In the absence of anything resembling true heroes in our real world, they need to truly inspire us.
Clark has power that sets him apart from everyone else he knows. In the almost seven decades since he first "leapt an eight of a mile", his power has grown to the level that even other superheroes are in awe of him. Time and time again, most recently in Smallville, it is shown that he does not want to live apart from the rest of the world. He can only continue to serve as an example of hope and justice by understanding why most people believe in what they do, and by showing them how they can live their lives by his example. Unlike in other stories, such as Superman: Red Son in which he becomes Czar, Superman would be making his role as Earth's defender into one of inspirational icon. He can save the world from alien invasions, but in between he can show us how the world can be changed without actually doing it himself, as was the case in Red Son.
Many may argue that Clark is already doing this and that giving him an official title or a more concrete political stance would simply limit the creative energy and the nature of the stories that can be told in comic books. This is, of course, completely understandable, as a fundamental distinction that makes comic books one of the world's greatest mediums are their serialized storytelling. The stories are dependent on what has come before to decide what will come later. This does prevent our medium from being able to take the liberties taken by films and cartoons. For example, how many fans can think of good stories that feature General Zod that can top what was done in the unique frame of reference that Superman II had?
Can superhero stories be more than colorful escapism, or is that layer of fluff fundamental to their continued success? If this is a question of super-powers, then I argue that it is not Clark's great strength and speed that are his unbelievable traits, but rather his unwavering dedication to such abstract morals as truth and justice. Other psuedo-supermen, such as Mr. Majestic, have stressed that it is more important to live as protectors, sheltering all that live below from all that attacks from above. Still more, such as Apollo, have claimed that they need to be that which the average man cannot be, through fear or apathy. I cite these two examples in particular because this is, in one way or another, how many see that the Superman-archetype has evolved over time.
Superman has driven the evolution of superheroics, both because of the times in history that he has had to thrive in, and because of the pedestal that he has been placed upon. It is not simply the aesthetics that have become iconic, so much so that people are offended when they are changed (I'm looking at you, Superman Blue). The fundamentals of Superman have become canon for our culture. While the image of "Uncle Sam" personified America's stubborn dedication to honor and valor in prior generations, it has become Superman who serves as the most potent example of what most Americans want to be. Clark Kent is successful, content, and shrewd enough that he can convince everyone in his life that he is not, in fact, the sole survivor of Krypton. This showcases the incredible power that the "man" in Superman wields.
The question may simply be whether or not Superman should be more proactive in the face of any potential real world disaster. I hope that many would say that our real world is not lacking in glory, and that superhero stories can continue to service those in a unique niche. In what is easily the most entertaining of his current stories, All-Star Superman has Grant Morrison proving that "there is nothing wrong with the Man of Steel." It seems, for now at least, that Clark Kent will not overburden himself with attempts to rectify the socioeconomic disparity of the less fortunate, but he can punch a giant monkey in the junk when the need arises. Superman has more power than any hero before him, and any superhero has had since, but only as much responsibility as he has chosen to take. Both our world and his love him. Maybe it's time to see how much they can take.
<center><hr width=75%></center>
Mike Sangregorio was very happy to see Cyclops actually do something heroic in Superman Returns. He just wishes that Cyclops could have done something more than whine when his wife blew him up in X-Men United.
<center><hr width=75%></center>
One-Shots is an ongoing, revolving column, ready and willing for your contributions. Please read over our <a href="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=32883" target="_blank">guidelines</a> first, and then send your submissions to Raul Grau at columns@comixfan.cjb.net.
The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and are not reflective of Comixfan or its staff.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Post 2]
Author : Ann Nichols
Date : Aug 27, 2006 02:12 pm
Title : Re: ONE-SHOTS #17: MAYBE THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN AFTER ALL
Let us not forget two loving and well-adjusted persons who reared young Kal-El to be a fine, upstanding man who cares about truth and justice: John & Martha Kent. I'd hate to think what Superman would be like if he'd been rereared by sociopaths or even just greedy, apathetic types.
This was an interesting column, but I loved your last paragraph best.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Post 3]
Author : Toga
Date : Aug 27, 2006 05:49 pm
Title : Re: ONE-SHOTS #17: MAYBE THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN AFTER ALL
good article, just wanted to note, Supes was not Czar in Red son, he was the commuinist party leader. the Czar considered himself in affiliation with God, and the communist party wanted to do away with that.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Post 4]
Author : Mike Sangregorio
Date : Aug 27, 2006 11:48 pm
Title : Re: ONE-SHOTS #17: MAYBE THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN AFTER ALL
good article, just wanted to note, Supes was not Czar in Red son, he was the commuinist party leader. the Czar considered himself in affiliation with God, and the communist party wanted to do away with that.
You are correct, sir. My mistake. As the almost too well crafted Red Son figures have since told me, he was actually President of the Soviet Union.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The messages has been download from Comixfan Forums at http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums at 05.10.2007 10:55:44
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
THREAD : ONE-SHOTS #17: MAYBE THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN AFTER ALL
Started at Aug 26, 2006 05:30 pm by raul grau
Visit at http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=39976
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Post 1]
Author : raul grau
Date : Aug 26, 2006 05:30 pm
Title : ONE-SHOTS #17: MAYBE THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN AFTER ALL
<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/columns/oneshots1.jpg" hspace=10 align=left border=0 alt="One-Shots logo">By Mike Sangregorio, darquehex@gmail.com
Maybe This Is A Job For Superman After All
In our "real world," those that inspire us, our supposed heroes, are more often than not few and far between. In worlds where there are men, women, and occasionally animals with great physical and mental strength, the title of "hero" is tossed around more than irradiated arachnids. Having been given great power, instead of horrible disfigurement or cancer, what then is the difference between a super-powered individual and a superhero? To answer this, it might be a good idea to try and understand where exactly our idea of a "super" hero comes from. After seven issues of "Earth-2-Kal-L" in Infinite Crisis and the almost entertaining Superman Returns, it would seem that the world is ready to reexamine what it likes about Superman.
Who was Clark Kent to bound into Metropolis, calling himself a hero? Was he not a Nietzsche-esque copy of Philip Wylie's Gladiator in a gaudy circus outfit? What defines a hero has always varied from culture to culture, but in America, heroes had been warriors, idealistic highwaymen, and occasionally vigilantes who took the law into their own hands in an attempt to serve some loftier sets of moral ideals. Heroes fought the system and were ultimately remembered as good people. They inspired heroics in others, and would argue that one does not become a hero by simply stating it as fact. Superman has done all this and more, but why is it that this showman, this flamboyant tool of American commerce is not only still around today, but has come to personify America in more ways than most people are readily willing to admit?
One factor is the often overlooked, but basic tenet that Clark Kent is Superman. Since 1938 and without notable interruption, the two have been interchangeable. Superman is not a legacy or a mantle that has been bestowed onto different people. Love it or hate it, but Flash survived for decades only by having Jay Garrick begat Barry Allen who begat Wally West who begat Bart Allen. There has never been a real need, commercially or artistically, for Superman to become a legacy. Clark Kent was on the original Justice Society of America while also serving as a founding member of the Justice League of America. His success, along with that of only really Batman (whose mythos is its own beast), proved longer lasting than any single version of any character. This is especially important when remembering that Clark's alter ego was the inspiration for more than a few of the mystery men who came after him.
As a longtime fan of Green Lantern, it is easy for me to praise the ingenuity of so many writers who have contributed to his many incarnations, but in 1940 cartoonist Martin Nodell wrote what was essentially a revamp of Aladdin. Young "Alan" Scott, with his magic lamp and ring that granted him incredible powers, put on a cape, mask, and otherwise out of place ensemble to fight the good fight against evil men who would do wrong. It may be difficult to see, in light of decades of fantastic success and hard fought rationalizations, but this probably seems more than a bit out of place at the time. As was echoed in Michael Chabon's novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, characters such as Green Lantern, along with more others than I can really name here, were the results of creators wanting to earn a living doing what Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster eventually proved was successful. Again, this is both an in-continuity truth as well as being a practical origin for the explosion of super-powered-"heroes" that comic books saw.
Looking again at Batman, he became an archetype in and of himself regardless of the plot points borrowed from Zorro and pulp characters such as Black Bat and The Shadow. Regardless, it is Bruce Wayne's alter ego who is still in print today. This is a man who has more than once been forced to admit the glaring reality of his own mortality. He has had wards and other underage protégés running around since before he first crossed paths with The Man Who Laughs (or "Joker" as we have come to call him). Though partly a sales gimmick, as kid sidekicks seemed to have been en vogue back then, Robin also deadened the world to the fact that the standard of what made Batman a hero was the image of fear that he created.
Batman scared people into not wanting to do wrong, which is a concept that seems alien (no pun intended) to Superman. He has no legacy to continue or pass on, and most importantly of all, no mask. Clark Kent's ever increasing range of superhuman abilities mean that he is defined only by what he can do, not by how he makes himself seen. He is quite literally the "super" in superhero. He does not want to put fear into people. He wants to show them how they can do the right thing, and his powers afford him that luxury. People fear "The Batman", and criminals are wary of the various members of the Justice League, but Superman alone inspires greatness in others.
Kal-El is essentially a performer, who puts on his glasses and his costume of Clark Kent, as performed frighteningly well by actor Brandon Routh. He wants people to acknowledge Clark, but to truly pay attention to Superman. What then is he in the eyes of those that he claims to serve? Is his humanity a façade? Clark lacks the aura of impending emotional disaster that would make any other believable human with this much raw physical power a threat. It may be the case that the only way to understand Superman, and thus most of what comic book fans have come to title as superheroes, is to realize that, in the real world, we would have asked him lead us.
The idea of superheroes holding political office is currently the trendy plot point, with Rising Star's RavenShadow being elected PoDUS and Ex Machina's Mayor Mitchell Hundred, the idea first came to my attention in the original Squadron Supreme which had the Batman analog Nighthawk following suit. Series creator Mark Gruenwald seemed to consider this an in-character, natural extension of his career as a superhero. Why is it that Superman would not be the ideal candidate for a career as a politician? In continuity, he is nonchalantly given more power than the average President holds by being chairman of the Justice League. An overwhelming desire to keep stories out of the real world has kept Superman from not only taking his cause to the next level, but from actually making a difference in his world.
Joe Kelly's What's so funny about Truth, Justice & The American Way from Action Comics #775 had The Authority pastiche The Elite asking the Man of Steel questions such as these. As good as the story was, Superman spent most of the time defending his inaction, not really offering up a comparable course of action. This is not a prayer to the great gods of Time Warner that Superman start beheading anyone he disagrees with, but a plea that fans and creators alike better understand how he can become more than just a "politically neutral" tool of whoever holds the pen. It is time to ask that these superheroes once again do more than just entertain. In the absence of anything resembling true heroes in our real world, they need to truly inspire us.
Clark has power that sets him apart from everyone else he knows. In the almost seven decades since he first "leapt an eight of a mile", his power has grown to the level that even other superheroes are in awe of him. Time and time again, most recently in Smallville, it is shown that he does not want to live apart from the rest of the world. He can only continue to serve as an example of hope and justice by understanding why most people believe in what they do, and by showing them how they can live their lives by his example. Unlike in other stories, such as Superman: Red Son in which he becomes Czar, Superman would be making his role as Earth's defender into one of inspirational icon. He can save the world from alien invasions, but in between he can show us how the world can be changed without actually doing it himself, as was the case in Red Son.
Many may argue that Clark is already doing this and that giving him an official title or a more concrete political stance would simply limit the creative energy and the nature of the stories that can be told in comic books. This is, of course, completely understandable, as a fundamental distinction that makes comic books one of the world's greatest mediums are their serialized storytelling. The stories are dependent on what has come before to decide what will come later. This does prevent our medium from being able to take the liberties taken by films and cartoons. For example, how many fans can think of good stories that feature General Zod that can top what was done in the unique frame of reference that Superman II had?
Can superhero stories be more than colorful escapism, or is that layer of fluff fundamental to their continued success? If this is a question of super-powers, then I argue that it is not Clark's great strength and speed that are his unbelievable traits, but rather his unwavering dedication to such abstract morals as truth and justice. Other psuedo-supermen, such as Mr. Majestic, have stressed that it is more important to live as protectors, sheltering all that live below from all that attacks from above. Still more, such as Apollo, have claimed that they need to be that which the average man cannot be, through fear or apathy. I cite these two examples in particular because this is, in one way or another, how many see that the Superman-archetype has evolved over time.
Superman has driven the evolution of superheroics, both because of the times in history that he has had to thrive in, and because of the pedestal that he has been placed upon. It is not simply the aesthetics that have become iconic, so much so that people are offended when they are changed (I'm looking at you, Superman Blue). The fundamentals of Superman have become canon for our culture. While the image of "Uncle Sam" personified America's stubborn dedication to honor and valor in prior generations, it has become Superman who serves as the most potent example of what most Americans want to be. Clark Kent is successful, content, and shrewd enough that he can convince everyone in his life that he is not, in fact, the sole survivor of Krypton. This showcases the incredible power that the "man" in Superman wields.
The question may simply be whether or not Superman should be more proactive in the face of any potential real world disaster. I hope that many would say that our real world is not lacking in glory, and that superhero stories can continue to service those in a unique niche. In what is easily the most entertaining of his current stories, All-Star Superman has Grant Morrison proving that "there is nothing wrong with the Man of Steel." It seems, for now at least, that Clark Kent will not overburden himself with attempts to rectify the socioeconomic disparity of the less fortunate, but he can punch a giant monkey in the junk when the need arises. Superman has more power than any hero before him, and any superhero has had since, but only as much responsibility as he has chosen to take. Both our world and his love him. Maybe it's time to see how much they can take.
<center><hr width=75%></center>
Mike Sangregorio was very happy to see Cyclops actually do something heroic in Superman Returns. He just wishes that Cyclops could have done something more than whine when his wife blew him up in X-Men United.
<center><hr width=75%></center>
One-Shots is an ongoing, revolving column, ready and willing for your contributions. Please read over our <a href="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=32883" target="_blank">guidelines</a> first, and then send your submissions to Raul Grau at columns@comixfan.cjb.net.
The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and are not reflective of Comixfan or its staff.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Post 2]
Author : Ann Nichols
Date : Aug 27, 2006 02:12 pm
Title : Re: ONE-SHOTS #17: MAYBE THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN AFTER ALL
Let us not forget two loving and well-adjusted persons who reared young Kal-El to be a fine, upstanding man who cares about truth and justice: John & Martha Kent. I'd hate to think what Superman would be like if he'd been rereared by sociopaths or even just greedy, apathetic types.
This was an interesting column, but I loved your last paragraph best.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Post 3]
Author : Toga
Date : Aug 27, 2006 05:49 pm
Title : Re: ONE-SHOTS #17: MAYBE THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN AFTER ALL
good article, just wanted to note, Supes was not Czar in Red son, he was the commuinist party leader. the Czar considered himself in affiliation with God, and the communist party wanted to do away with that.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Post 4]
Author : Mike Sangregorio
Date : Aug 27, 2006 11:48 pm
Title : Re: ONE-SHOTS #17: MAYBE THIS IS A JOB FOR SUPERMAN AFTER ALL
good article, just wanted to note, Supes was not Czar in Red son, he was the commuinist party leader. the Czar considered himself in affiliation with God, and the communist party wanted to do away with that.
You are correct, sir. My mistake. As the almost too well crafted Red Son figures have since told me, he was actually President of the Soviet Union.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The messages has been download from Comixfan Forums at http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/forums at 05.10.2007 10:55:44