Comics Superman Only Viable As An Allegory

[protoctista]

I suppose the question is, can we relate to a character that is superhuman?

As humans, it is our flaws that define us more than anything. We relate most to characters in literature because of their flaws and their struggles. As an example, in The Great Gatsby, the titular character has little significance but as an intriguing ambiguity until we realise that sadness of his flawed state.




Superman is an alien.

Superman is physically omnipotent. All-powerful.

In order to continue acting the way he does, and as we are continually reminded, Superman has endless compassion for humanity.

He varies in his presentation morally; sometimes he is perfect in this regard; always doing the right thing, sometimes not.

If he is an alien, physically omnipotent and morally perfect - he has no human qualities except compassion. But no human has endless compassion. Read that description again and you'll realise that none of those qualities do you, as a human, possess. There is nothing human about him. He is an allegory for Christ.

Say he isn't perfect morally. He is still alien, physically omnipotent and has compassion for humanity. But how can we relate to this? Few human has ever been in the position where their moral flaws are revealed in the grand scale of their omnipotent actions. The only humans that have been in this position are political leaders. So he is a political allegory. (Like in The Dark Knight Returns).




So should writers cease to attempt to imbue an character that has no human qualities with a third dimension? Should we just accept the fact that Superman is an allegory for larger ideas, and use his supporting characters to invest in as human beings?

 

[Melkay]

While everything you point out is true, it's not less true for other characters. Deep down, most of them function as allegories, as archetypes and ideas. Some of them (Batman comes to mind) defy pre-conceived morality an thus project the image of a conflicted psychological landscape... how can you be good, but carrying all those flaws and doing such things that are morally wrong. And in the dichotomy, the heros find their complexity.

He has never shown TOTAL COMPASSION. Total compassion makes for a passive god, one who doesn't punish criminals

Of course, Superman is a distinguishable simple character. He is supposed to be all-good and make no mistakes, and that is terrible for a character. But several writers have found cracks in that god-like archetype where human traits can be placed. And I think the most popular of these traits are naiveness and extreme moral sense. For example, in TDKR, Miller re-imagined Sups as something very akin to Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen... while Manhattan works for the government in a mixed state of moral ambiguity and detachment from human emotions, Superman works for the government in a state of completey naiveness: He wants desperately to do the right thing for mankind (Extreme Moral Sense), but he can't figure out what is the right thing to do all the time... so he lets politician to do all the difficult decisions, and he only functions as a tool for achieving those "altruistic" goals.

Alan Moore did a similar thing in "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow" where the finale reveals that the anxiety of not knowing what is the best thing to do or his inability to save lives pushes Superman to exile himself from humanity, faking his own death. Many other writers have also explored this idea.

And moral incertitude and naiveness are certainly human traits, the kind of ambiguity and weakness that is reserved for mortals. Maybe not enough to make him a three-dimensional character, but a conflicted one for sure. He will always function as an allegory, like the world-icon he is.... but the nature of such allegory will only depend on the story.

While the political angle worked superbly on TDKR, maybe it wouldn't work on a more religious allegory like The Death Of Superman storyline, or in "Superman Returns".

 

[protoctista]

While everything you point out is true, it's not less true for other characters.

Even if you are character, and all other superheroes are totally allegorical, Superman is the absolute extreme in this regard.

Deep down, most of them function as allegories, as archetypes and ideas.

Yes but for essentially human ideas; Hope, the desire to do good, compassion, the need to belong, fear.

Superman isn't hopeful - he IS hope.

Superman has an all encompassing desire to do good that isn't even remotely human. His drive is nearly as all-powerful as his means.

Compassion. Compassion comes from an intrinsic value of life through understanding of the human condition. Superman isn't a human, and so his compassion for humanity is not human. It is the same way that a benevolant master would perceive his adorable little wayward subjects - it is not at all human.

Fear. He has no reason to ever be fearful, or to comprehend fear because he is indesructable.

He has never shown TOTAL COMPASSION. Total compassion makes for a passive god, one who doesn't punish criminals

He still has compassion that reaches near infinite levels. He has compassion in the same way that the Old Testament God did; the kind of compassion that will kick your ass if you betray it. It's as much near to total compassion as you will get without being passive.

Of course, Superman is a distinguishable simple character. He is supposed to be all-good and make no mistakes, and that is terrible for a character.

Damn right.

But several writers have found cracks in that god-like archetype where human traits can be placed. And I think the most popular of these traits are naiveness and extreme moral sense.

Whilst naivety is a human trait that is seen in Superman, it's not an insight into the human condition. Being a naive human isn't like being a naive Superman, because being a naive human generally results in pain. Extreme Moral Sense is a totally inhuman quality. Human morality stems from either logic or compassion - as I've said, he can't feel true compassion because he doesn't know what it's like to be human, and moral sense dictated by logic is cold.

For example, in TDKR, Miller re-imagined Sups as something very akin to Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen... while Manhattan works for the government in a mixed state of moral ambiguity and detachment from human emotions, Superman works for the government in a state of completey naiveness: He wants desperately to do the right thing for mankind (Extreme Moral Sense), but he can't figure out what is the right thing to do all the time... so he lets politician to do all the difficult decisions, and he only functions as a tool for achieving those "altruistic" goals.

In TDKR, Superman is an allegory. His naivety is the naivety that America has shown the world time and time again in thinking it can solve the world's problems bombastically. His extreme power is the might of American arms. His fight against batman is the allegorical fight of the common man standing up to an all encompasing unstopable force of human design, but of no human nature. It underlines my point completely.


Dr. Manhattan is concsiously inhuman. That is the genius of that character. He is the embodiment of the hiroshima bomb.

Alan Moore did a similar thing in "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow" where the finale reveals that the anxiety of not knowing what is the best thing to do or his inability to save lives pushes Superman to exile himself from humanity, faking his own death. Many other writers have also explored this idea.

So he doesn't know what to do with the power of God?

How is that a human quality? When has a human being ever had to face what it would do with the power of God? Oh, that's right, governments have. With nuclear missiles. Again, Superman as a political allegory is still an allegory. And if you'll recall, we don't use nuclear weaponry because it's too extreme.

And moral incertitude and naiveness are certainly human traits, the kind of ambiguity and weakness that is reserved for mortals. Maybe not enough to make him a three-dimensional character, but a conflicted one for sure. He will always function as an allegory, like the world-icon he is.... but the nature of such allegory will only depend on the story.

While the political angle worked superbly on TDKR, maybe it wouldn't work on a more religious allegory like The Death Of Superman storyline, or in "Superman Returns".

True, I think there are sufficient flaws to rule out a Christ allegory, you're right. But there isn't enough to make him a human being, or a study into the human psyche.

If a character can't do that, he shouldn't be the focus of the story.

In my opinion, a Superman story should involve Superman in the same way that TDKR or Watchmen did - acknowledge the fact that he represents good-intentioned political power, and focus on the supporting cast and how they deal with that.

 

[Melkay]

Even if you are character, and all other superheroes are totally allegorical, Superman is the absolute extreme in this regard.

Well, let's find out if that's true, shall we?

Yes but for essentially human ideas; Hope, the desire to do good, compassion, the need to belong, fear.

Superman isn't hopeful - he IS hope.

He is hope for others, but that's it. He has his own expectations too, from the most mundane one (wanting to be with Lois) to the most philantropics (wishing a better future for humanity).

Superman has an all encompassing desire to do good that isn't even remotely human. His drive is nearly as all-powerful as his means.

That's true, but that doesn't mean his means are necessarily infallible. He meets challenges that are even beyond his means, that's the difficulty of writing for his stories.

Compassion. Compassion comes from an intrinsic value of life through understanding of the human condition. Superman isn't a human, and so his compassion for humanity is not human. It is the same way that a benevolant master would perceive his adorable little wayward subjects - it is not at all human.

I find that concept of compassion truly flawed. Who can dfine what human condition is? You, me? No one can. No one can have a deep understanding of human condition, not even us, because that condition surpasses our own individualities and experiences. If you're asking about mortality and its comprehension, then I must say that Kal-el knows mortality, and ahs experienced the destruction of a world and an entire civilization. His compassion comes from his constant intent of preventing that cataclysm from happening again in Earth.

Fear. He has no reason to ever be fearful, or to comprehend fear because he is indesructable.

He's not, and fear of one's own destruction isn't the only fear out there. Fear for a loved one, fear of losing an ideal, fear of not being enough to accomplish something, fear of failure, fear of doing wrong. Get my point?

He still has compassion that reaches near infinite levels. He has compassion in the same way that the Old Testament God did; the kind of compassion that will kick your ass if you betray it. It's as much near to total compassion as you will get without being passive.

In a way, I think he's a lot more compassionate than Jehovah (Sodom and Gomorrah), but this is not that kind of discussion. Yes, he does feel almost infinite compassion, but compared to ancient hebrews, almost everyone would. No, the Old Testament is not the place to look for. You have to get to The Passion to actually behold what Almost Infinite Compassion means. And while Superman has sacrificed himself for humanity in numerous times, he still lives by the sword .

Whilst naivety is a human trait that is seen in Superman, it's not an insight into the human condition. Being a naive human isn't like being a naive Superman, because being a naive human generally results in pain.

Moral pain, that is. I don't think that completely unrelatable to Superman. He's still a very emotional guy, and that's where his main difference with Manhattan lies.

Extreme Moral Sense is a totally inhuman quality. Human morality stems from either logic or compassion - as I've said, he can't feel true compassion because he doesn't know what it's like to be human, and moral sense dictated by logic is cold.[/qoute]

That would mean that all humans can (and do) feel true compassion, and that ain't so. His moral sense has proven to be flawed, of course, but it's extreme nonetheless. Besides, human morality comes from very different places, not only logic, because morality is a set of rules where many ideas are completely outdated. They stem from evolutional imperatives and irrational desires, rather than from logic per se.

Bigamy, for example, is very well ingrained in most of the world's moral codes, but it comes from a profound fear of losing control over sexual relationship, and yet this is not logical, but irrational. It's remnant of evolutionary behaviour, not a result of Logic.

In TDKR, Superman is an allegory. His naivety is the naivety that America has shown the world time and time again in thinking it can solve the world's problems bombastically.

A naivety that can be present in a single individual and in different context... and even in a macro-context such as a nations collective conscience, it's still a Human Trait. Naivety, after all, comes from lack of wisdom.

His extreme power is the might of American arms. His fight against batman is the allegorical fight of the common man standing up to an all encompasing unstopable force of human design, but of no human nature. It underlines my point completely.

And DKR shows that even that power is finite, isn't it. It's not unstoppable. Batman also functions as an allegory, but not such an overt one.
Let's take it even further... isn't it true that every literary character can be read as an allegory? What is Raskolnikov but the constant existentialist anguish and guilt of the intellectuality as class? (that, and other things)
And yet, isn't he VERY human?
Batman, Superman and Raskolnikov take human ideas and pump it until they become fully formed characters that embody that particular idea. (or, in Frank Miller's case, at least trying counts...)

Dr. Manhattan is concsiously inhuman. That is the genius of that character. He is the embodiment of the hiroshima bomb.

And also of the ideal God... ones that can't connect with human because he's not human, until he decides to create human life, out of intellectual curiosity. He becomes one a god that doesn't understand mankind, and decides to take a step back a marvel at the world, or retire to his particular Garden of Eden (Mars) and walking through it without worrying for other people.
Mahattan suffers various transformations, and yes, at the beginning, he is the atomic bomb... but the atomic bomb doesn't decide to leave its masters.

So he doesn't know what to do with the power of God?

Exactly, which is a distinctively human trait, only that we don't put much thought in the process.

How is that a human quality? When has a human being ever had to face what it would do with the power of God? Oh, that's right, governments have. With nuclear missiles. Again, Superman as a political allegory is still an allegory. And if you'll recall, we don't use nuclear weaponry because it's too extreme.

Governments are composed of human beings, you know? And they, as a group, usually behave as a single human being. Especially when it's an authoritarian, absolutist government.

True, I think there are sufficient flaws to rule out a Christ allegory, you're right. But there isn't enough to make him a human being, or a study into the human psyche.

If a character can't do that, he shouldn't be the focus of the story.

In my opinion, a Superman story should involve Superman in the same way that TDKR or Watchmen did - acknowledge the fact that he represents good-intentioned political power, and focus on the supporting cast and how they deal with that.

I can't agree with this. No character is completely human... some ideas have moe priority than others, and while Sups is considerably simpler than many characters, he still functions well as a protagonist. He's harder to write, but that's it.

The idea of him as a secondary character is a sweet one, and should be exploited more.

 

[Andy C.]

If Superman's readers didn't connect with the character on a basic human level, the comic would have gone under years ago. Yes, he works well as an allegory when done in the right context (Kingdom Come, All-Star Superman, even...ugh...TDKR), but beyond that there's still the Everyman persona driving it.

In most versions of the story, Clark didn't even know about his alien heritage until he was nearly an adult, spending most of his years as a lonely geek who didn't fit in with everyone else. He has a blue-collar job for a boss that doesn't always appreciate his work, still gets hassled by his co-workers, and depending on what part of the story you're looking at, either can't get the woman of his dreams to look his way or tries to maintain a fairly happy marriage under difficult circumstances. Not to mention that he's just recently had to deal with losing his adoptive father.

It may not be as dramatic as Bruce "I wear all my problems on my sleeve" Wayne, but that element of the character still has a lot more in common with you or me than billionaire ninjas or whatnot.

Also, measuring the weight of the Superman character by Elseworld stories like DKR and unrelated stories like Watchmen doesn't really hold up. Miller in DKR specifically wrote Superman as a political straw-man, made for the sole purpose of looking bad in comparison to Batman. And Doctor Manhattan was never meant to be an ersatz for Superman in the first place--Moore's take on Supes would be his work on Supreme. These work as poignant one-shot messages, but could you honestly imagine either versions of the character being able to carry an ongoing monthly series, for seventy years?

Admittedly, Superman doesn't have the "cool" factor that makes folks like Batman or Wolverine such an easy sell. But the fact that so many writers, after so many years, are still able to find new angles on the persona and new stories to tell with him, speaks volumes about how well the character still works.

 

[The Sage]

Superman works as allegory but can be understandable and compelling. True, that we can't completely relate to the character of Superman, but we can relate to what he fights for: truth, justice, hope, progression, optimism. He's human in all of the good ways, but none of the bad. He's able to avoid the pitfalls that we fall into from time to time.

In short, Superman is who we strive to be like. Grant Morrison called him the Dream version of the Everyman, which is a pretty good description.

 

[storyteller]

I think fi you look at superman at face value then he's not human but these comic are about people who do extraordinary things no matter how powerful/weak they are.

Superman is an alien
-----Superman is dfferent. He's an orphan, he isnt sure of his place in the world. Welcome to the human race.

Superman is physically omnipotent. All-powerful.
Yeah your right but the thing is how would someone so different used those abilities. I can tell you i would have scored some peaks in the girls locker room.... How does a god with a human mind control themselves.

Instead of looking at superman as someone who cant be the everyman. look at him as what would the everyman do with what makes him different. I guess its hard to relate to a guy who takes on monsters and stuff. But I think we can relate to a guy who has to struggle to fit in. While I may not bust through walls, im a geek with his own set of skills others lack.



If you want to see superman as a god then you can see him as a god. I will see him as a man who can do things and make the right choice about what to do with it.

 

[Reebee52]

This has been a very interesting debate thus far. I wish I could comment on all the pieces that have been said, but there's been too much, so I'll just briefly put in my two cents.

Superman the symbol represents what you have said. He represents hope, he represents goodness. But there is a man behind the symbol, and that's where a lot of the conflict of character comes in.

I could write a lot on this topic, because every freaking time I tell someone I prefer Superman to Batman they think I'm crazy. (Something I've never understood, I'm a Superman fan who loves Batman, but most Batman fans hate Superman). Superman, while he is seen as a beacon of hope and goodness, is a man. Yes he's an alien, and that affects him in many ways, but he was raised human with human virtues. Superman, if he had his choice, would NOT be the beacon of the hope. He would be a farmer, and live a calm quiet life. But he feels he does NOT have a choice, he feels that with his power it is his responsibility to carry the world on his shoulders. He also lives with the eternal hope that he can inspire the world to do good on its own, but humanity's darkness keeps creeping back. There's a great scene in Superman: For Tomorrow when Superman goes to a civil war in the Middle East and, in anger, forces them to quit. He destroys their weapons and says, "No more." This action poses questionable morality, and questions the nature of power. BUt remember that the person who crushed the guns was a reporter named Clark Kent.

The bottom line is that he's seen as a God but he wants to be man.

There is certainly a Messianic aspect to Superman (Jesus is a Messianic Figure, as characters like Neo and Harry Potter. A messianic character one that is destined to to sacrifice himself for the betterment of the world. There's more to it than that, but that's basically it). This does not mean Superman is not relatable. Messiance characters typically exemplify humanity all at once, making them relatable to everybody. This is why Superman has endured for seventy years, and why, if you scan through a Superman message board, you'll find various zealot fans who don't agree on what Superman should be, or what they want to include in his story.

Superman is a symbol, but Clark Kent is a lonely man trying to understand his purpose. Sounds relatable to me.

 

[Rasputin911]

I suppose the question is, can we relate to a character that is superhuman?

As humans, it is our flaws that define us more than anything. We relate most to characters in literature because of their flaws and their struggles. As an example, in The Great Gatsby, the titular character has little significance but as an intriguing ambiguity until we realise that sadness of his flawed state.




Superman is an alien.

Superman is physically omnipotent. All-powerful.

In order to continue acting the way he does, and as we are continually reminded, Superman has endless compassion for humanity.

He varies in his presentation morally; sometimes he is perfect in this regard; always doing the right thing, sometimes not.

If he is an alien, physically omnipotent and morally perfect - he has no human qualities except compassion. But no human has endless compassion. Read that description again and you'll realise that none of those qualities do you, as a human, possess. There is nothing human about him. He is an allegory for Christ.

Say he isn't perfect morally. He is still alien, physically omnipotent and has compassion for humanity. But how can we relate to this? Few human has ever been in the position where their moral flaws are revealed in the grand scale of their omnipotent actions. The only humans that have been in this position are political leaders. So he is a political allegory. (Like in The Dark Knight Returns).




So should writers cease to attempt to imbue an character that has no human qualities with a third dimension? Should we just accept the fact that Superman is an allegory for larger ideas, and use his supporting characters to invest in as human beings?

very good anyalysis of the character.

Superman's origin, after all, was political propaganda. He was basically a symbol of the Roosevelt administration, meant to rally support for the New Deal and then WW2.

 

[Reebee52]

very good anyalysis of the character.

Superman's origin, after all, was political propaganda. He was basically a symbol of the Roosevelt administration, meant to rally support for the New Deal and then WW2.

I might disagree. He maybe became political propaganda but that was never his origin. Images like the cover of Superman 14 are without a doubt, but at the basis he was not created for that purpose.

 

[Rasputin911]

I might disagree. He maybe became political propaganda but that was never his origin. Images like the cover of Superman 14 are without a doubt, but at the basis he was not created for that purpose.

reading up on it i got the impression his creators were new-deal warhawks, but i could be wrong.

That is what he became though: government propaganda. Very much a symbol of centralized American power

 

[DavidTyler]

And with this thread you've demostrated why the suits at Warner Bros can't make a decent Superman movie.

Superman is not an allegory for Christ. He's not even an allegory for Moses (to which he bears a stronger resemblence in origin).

Superman is our better selves but far from perfect. He's one of us tuned up but he still possesses all of our human emotional frailties. He can be wrong. He can make bad judgements. He can even feel a broken heart. To attribute to him unlimited compassion is to totally misunderstand the character and saddle him with a weak characterization.

He is and should be a complex individual even in that he has straightforwardness about him.

 

[Czar Colossus]

To a degree I agree. Superman is compared to Christ because of the parallel with his origin in that he was sent from the heavens to be a savior. Aside from that Superman represents a symbol of morality, but he is not without flaws. His moral compass is derived from his upbringing by two very loving, selfless humans (as we all know). I think the mistake that is often made is that Superman is assumed to be the real identity and Clark is the disguise. Smallville got this dichotomy right. Superman exists so that Clark can have some semblance of happiness in his life on Earth, while assuming the responsibilities that go with his powers. Clark has to make decisions that the rest of use don't have to and they're not always going to be right. I think to say that Superman always does the right thing is false; he always tries to do the right thing and when he's wrong he's got to live with the consequences. The greatest thing about Superman is his humanity. Jack Larson put it well when he pointed out that at the time that Superman came along he was the first alien to come along to be a savior not a destroyer. I don't agree with people that say Superman is difficult to relate to. Every kid wants to be Superman. I could imagine being in his shoes, being in a foreign land from birth but not necessarily being one of them. How would you handle that? Some aspects of all the Superman movies were great, but as a whole there will always be debate of just how rightthe creators got it. Superman is the standard by which all other heroes are judged. I do not believe for a minute that he works only as an allegory. There are more good Superman stories than bad ones and I think they should ask Bruce Timm and Paul Dini to be involved in the next Superman movie. Their interpretation is the best one yet!

 

[theMan-Bat]

And with this thread you've demostrated why the suits at Warner Bros can't make a decent Superman movie.

Superman is not an allegory for Christ. He's not even an allegory for Moses (to which he bears a stronger resemblence in origin).

Superman is our better selves but far from perfect. He's one of us tuned up but he still possesses all of our human emotional frailties. He can be wrong. He can make bad judgements. He can even feel a broken heart. To attribute to him unlimited compassion is to totally misunderstand the character and saddle him with a weak characterization.

He is and should be a complex individual even in that he has straightforwardness about him.

Exactly! Well said.