There are also people who hate certain works and portrayals of characters without having any real understanding of them.
That may be true. But I'm an educated, intelligent person trained to read and understand narratives and I'm not one of them.
I have a full understanding of Dark Knight Returns. I understand completely what Miller was trying to say about Superman and his place in the world. I don't like it nor do I agree with it. Even within the context of the story.
I don't care for Miller's racism or sexism either. So I don't support his work.
I'd argue KINGDOM COME ultimately does the character more a disservice than DKR did. But that said, both stories raised some very valid points about the character and his relationship to the world.
Kingdom Come has it's own problems and issues. And I could spend a full page listing them. It's a book with beautiful art that has been revered into iconic status with a lot of problems in characterization. Wonder Woman's characterization is particularly horrible in the book to the point that Mark Waid has apologized for it. The book has horrible gender problems. I'm not excusing Kingdom Come.
What, Superman has never been defeated or almost defeated before? Especially by Kryptonite? Read a comic book.
I've read thousands of comic books. For about 20 years. Thanks. Still don't like the book.
And overall, it's actually fairly in line with the portrayal of Superman in the comics at the time, and in that era, it was just obviously taken to a story extreme for thematic and story purposes. I actually think Superman comes across fairly well in DKR. Vulnerable, and fallible, but no less Superman for it.
Actually, I don't think it's at all in line with the portrayal of Superman in comics at that time. Dark Knight Returns was published only a brief year after Superman's final bow in the pre-crisis era with "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tommorrow." The Superman in that book was also vulnerable and falliable but had full control over his choices and a strong will. He was no one's fool.
It was published the same year as John Bryne's Man of Steel reboot which portrayed Clark as again, falliable, vulnerable and yet....empowered and dignified and able to stand tall and make his own choices.
Then again, at this point, the book was written over 25 years ago. So whether it was on point for "that time" really has no bearing on whether it's appropriate to be used as inspiration today. It's certainly NOT on point with the way he's portrayed today nor the way he was portrayed in Man of Steel.
There are plenty of other books that ask challenging, thoughtful and valid questions about Superman's place in our world while keeping his personality and dignity intact. They also managed to be written by men who liked and respected the character.
I respect if you enjoy the book. I do not.
t:
