Superman Round Table Discussion

[Stephanie Maple]

I am on Thanksgiving Break. I have been binging on comic books and video games (don't worry, my friends at college have labelled me a workaholic). I have been reading articles about Superman, what he represents, what different versions mean.

Superman seems simple, but there is a lot of symbolism in the series. Will Eisner said in Miller/Eisner that Superman's roots were from his creators' Judaism. I don't know if that's true, but I think Superman attempts to answer a number of questions.

1) How would a powerful being fit into society?
2) If the being chooses to use their powers for good, what is good?
3) Would this powerful person directly interfere in the law and government?


Superman answers these questions in positive ways. Superman almost always represents the common man- with his rural roots and professional job as a reporter- versus those with authority or abuse their powers. In the Golden Age, Superman once levelled slums so the government would be forced to build new ones. I think some of this symbolism was incorporated in the Post-Crisis Superman. Lex Luthor, as a businessman and politician holds power in society.
In the Silver Age, thanks to the Comics Code and the popularity of science-fiction the socio-economic symbolism was downplayed. Brainiac (who first appears in the first Silver Age Superman story) is the result of bad science. One writer said he represents "the evil alien side of Superman". Brainiac symbolizes the height of Cold War fears: that foreigners would take over and destroy American society.
In the Silver Age, the most potent symbol of power and authority are the Phantom Zone villains. Jax-Ur destroyed a colonized moon of Krypton (Wein, Whos' Who Issue 12 page 2). General Zod attempted to overthrow Krypton's government. In the movie Superman II, General Zod is the direct opposite of Superman. He has power fuelled by ambition and rage. General Zod symbolizes humanity's desire for power, while Superman symbolizes humanity's desire for happiness.

Anyways, what do you think about Superman?

[crinkled]

good thread.

i dont have much to say about superman. the fact that he's alien inhibits me to do so. but morrison's run on him (i cant remember which, im a bit drunk) hinges on the question you posed: what is good?

[Francisco]

Good points and nice thread LB. Regarding Superman's alien origin. Yes, he's an alien but only biologically. Mentally and spiritually he's extremely human (Thanks to Jonathan and Martha Kent). That's what makes him Superman. At least under John Byrne's interpretation of the character where Kryptonians were supposed to be this heartless cold thought machines.

I liked Elliot S! Magging answer to what means to be good or what's good. Elliot S Maggin's Superman didn't have much trouble identifying that which was evil and separating it from good. To him the answer was simple: Feeding the hungry = Good. Killing people = Bad. There's good and there's evil in the universe, the ancient Kryptonians said and it's not difficult to differentiate them.

[Stephanie Maple]

Do you think its' a coincidence that Superman's foes symoblize corruption (for example, General Zod) or do you think it was intentional?

[Gabriel Sosa-Castillo]

I agree with Francisco regarding the morality of Superman.

Now, I find interesting the corruption angle. Because each one symbolizes AN extreme corruption of a human virtue. In fact I would go as far as saying that his enemies are the embodiment of the seven social sins according to Gandhi.

1.politics without principles (General Zod)
2. wealth without work (Lex Luthor)
3.pleasure without conscience (Parasite)
4.knowledge without character (Ultra-Humanite)
5.commerce without morality (Intergang)
6.science without humanity (Brainiac)
7. worship without sacrifice (Darkseid)

As for the intent, I think that it was not exactly intentional, but they have developed following that sense specially because of the extreme desire to make Superman look like a flawless individual.

[Francisco]

Well if we take in account what happened in Superman's first appearance I think it was intentional of his creators to pit him against different representations of corruption. I mean his first opponents were a gangster, a bribe taking politician and a wife beater. I think Superman is supposed to represent the bright side of the American dream while his enemies (Lex Luthor specially) are supposed to represent the dark side of said dream.

[Jason K.]

Its important to note that Superman was orginally conceived as a villain.  It was around this time period that Hitler's Germany was on the rise, and along with it, the notion of the superior genetic race, a literal representation of Dostoyevsky's Superman.  Seigel and Shuster, being Jewish, were the target of Hitler's aggression and thus likely found this notion particularly threatening.  In this idea of the perfect specimen of man is the inevitable conclusion that, as the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Of course, Superman was eventually transformed into a hero, turning the original concept on its head, but you see where the idea originated.  Early Superman stories project a much more detached, inhuman Superman than the one we know today.  He was righteous and all-powerful, almost fascistic, but all of this seemed to stem from the inherent loneliness a Last Son of Krypton must experience.  For years he had no physical weaknesses (Kryptonite was not introduced until many years after Superman was created, and was actually first conceived on the Superman radio show), but it seems as though his mightiness, in the context of his incurable solitude, was played as a character flaw.  He became so much more than human that he could no longer relate, hence the overcompesation of the Clark Kent persona, a facade of weakness over a resevoir of strength.

Golden Age Superman was the perfect physical being and did not often use his wits to battle evil, which gave rise to his intellectual nemesis, Lex Luthor.  Luthor resented and coveted Superman's godliness, mirroring Hitler's anti-Semetic sentiments.  No doubt a considerable amount of editorial muscle was flexed with Superman to make him a man of action versus Luthor's more intellectual approach (doing vs. thinking), which is a very red-blooded American characteristic.  Ironically, neither man required any discipline to attain their abilities.  Both Superman's strength and Luthor's intellect are inherent, reinforcing the notion of a genetic superiority.  Of course, they also share the tragedy inherent in their power, that of loneliness and inadequecy. 

Nowadays, Superman is more rounded and more human than his previous counterparts, mostly in thanks to the development of his upbringing.  Additionally, his weaknesses have evolved past the simple plot devices of old.  Superman is now subject to the consequences of his actions.  He cannot merely will his way through a problem; he often must think through it, not unlike his nemesis.  As a result, Luthor becomes so much more dangerous because of his opportunistic and ammoral nature.  His transformation into a captain of industry and politician, who are often perceived as free of consequence, allows him to strike at Superman like no Doomsday or Zod every can.  Superman can tussle with pretty much anyone, win or lose, but the key here is that he can, being a man of action.  Luthor is a man Superman cannot simply fight.  Superhero fights exist outside of society as only superheroes can engage in them.  What makes Luthor so powerful and so scary is that he can use what Superman tries to defend from the outside, and attack him from within.

[Francisco]

Its important to note that Superman was orginally conceived as a villain.


IF I remember right that early incarnation of Superman had more in common with Brainiac and Lex Luthor than with the Supes we all know and love today.

PS: Great points WMDude.

[Stephanie Maple]

Is that why Superman was rejected by six publishers before it saw print?

[Jason K.]

Is that why Superman was rejected by six publishers before it saw print?

Probably.  Its more difficult to sell a product around a villain than a hero, but it was more just typical "getting published" woes.

[Gabriel Sosa-Castillo]

That was then.
Now a lot of villains are receiving stellar treatment.

I agree WMDude's first post was probably the most insightful post in this thread by far.

[Stephanie Maple]

We've been talking alot about the Golden Age, but that's not what I like best about the character. I like Supergirl, General Zod, Brainiac, the Legion...basically the elements that were added in the Silver Age. All the science-fiction stuff that defines Superman. I liked Superman before I learned about all this Golden Age stuff. When I was 5 years old I adored Supergirl. I wanted to fly and explore different planets.

What do you like best about Superman?

Action Comics # 242 contains the first apperance of Brainiac and the Bottled City of Kandor (Wizard Magazine # 215, page 86). I wonder what brought about the shift from socially revelent stories to science-fiction. Was it the Comics Code? The popularity of science-fiction in film? The editorship of men like Mort Weislinger and Julie Schwartz?

[Jason K.]

We've been talking alot about the Golden Age, but that's not what I like best about the character. I like Supergirl, General Zod, Brainiac, the Legion...basically the elements that were added in the Silver Age. All the science-fiction stuff that defines Superman. I liked Superman before I learned about all this Golden Age stuff. When I was 5 years old I adored Supergirl. I wanted to fly and explore different planets.

What do you like best about Superman?

Action Comics # 242 contains the first apperance of Brainiac and the Bottled City of Kandor (Wizard Magazine # 215, page 86). I wonder what brought about the shift from socially revelent stories to science-fiction. Was it the Comics Code? The popularity of science-fiction in film? The editorship of men like Mort Weislinger and Julie Schwartz?

Superman swiftly lost his social relevance once he became a cash cow in the very late 30s and on.  Once WWII ended and the Comics Code was instituted, Superman was one of the few superheroes who remained.  Undoubtedly, the editortorial renaissance of the 60s gave Superman new life.  Personally, I prefer post-Crisis Superman, where Clark Kent is the man and Superman is the persona.  I always felt Silver Age Superman was just one step removed from a megalomaniac (especially the way he treated Jimmy Olsen).

[Rainbow Raider]

cool poll, but why is Ultra Humanite on there? Where's Parasite or Metallo, or one of the others he fights on a regular basis?

[Stephanie Maple]

He's there for two reasons:

1) He is Superman's first major villain.

2) I am obsessed with the Golden Age, which you will notice throughout my posts and threads.