A response to Giving Up PEACE ON EARTH:

>> Now, I don't have the graphic novel in front of me, so I might be remembering two or three Superman stories as one, but I thought in the end it was Clark Kent, not Superman, who pitches in to help the poor, the tired, the hungry. <<

Yes, Clark Kent does...by teaching kids how to farm, one on one. He's literally informing five or ten children while millions starve. If he's lucky, maybe one or two of those kids will take up farming and contribute to the problem—in ten or 20 years. Meanwhile, people are dying now.

I contrasted Superman/Clark's approach with Wonder Woman's to show what he could be doing, but isn't. I'd call Supes' approach a gross dereliction of duty, given his self-imposed sense of responsibility. Why doesn't he start a Superman Foundation, fund it with some diamonds squeezed from coal, and teach a million people how to farm? Because he—and his writers—don't care enough about the problem.

>> Of course, this argument could be moot if I'm remembering the ending wrong. <<

I think you're remembering it but also romanticizing it—which is what Dini intended. He wanted readers to think Clark was handling world hunger a better way. Actually, no, he wasn't. Neither approach was ideal.

With Superman's awesome powers, he could solve or significantly ameliorate many of the world's problems. He could build hundreds of houses a day, reseed desertified or deforested areas, or unlock the secrets of AIDS. If he chose hunger as his cause, he could offer 12 one-hour clinics a day, around the globe, for decades. Neither time nor energy would be a real barrier.

Kurt Busiek had it right in ASTRO CITY. If Superman really cared, he'd be running himself ragged like Samaritan, 24 hours a day, solving problems and helping people. More realistically, he could follow Phil Jimenez's Wonder Woman, who's building institutions to foster long-term change. He could either team with her or do something similar on his own.

The Clark Kent one-on-one approach is akin to giving up, as far as I'm concerned. I don't read the Superman comics but I glance at them, and I haven't seen Clark or Supes show any further interest in helping the poor or fighting hunger. If there's a bank robbery or plane crash in Metropolis, he's there. Meanwhile, millions are dying of malnutrition, disease, and warfare elsewhere.

The meta-point, as I'm sure you can tell, is that American superheroes are patently ridiculous. They reflect our narrowminded view of what's right and wrong. We consider it our duty to be the "world's policeman," but we're dead last in percent of GNP spent as foreign aid. That's Superman in a nutshell: a policeman, not a compassionate advocate for the huddled masses.

I've always thought mega-powerful superheroes were especially ridiculous because they never addressed the world's real problems, though they had the power to do so. We're beginning to see hints of something different in comics like WONDER WOMAN, BLACK PANTHER, and the BIG TOWN mini-series. Unfortunately, I suspect these comics are aberrations, not harbingers of change. Superhero comics may go the way of the dinosaur unless someone rethinks the basic model.

You yourself said comics need to "grow up." That's my position also. They need to start dealing with real life and stop inventing uber-villains like Doomsday or Imperiax as if anyone cares.

The debate continues (11/5/01)....
>> Every journey begins with a single step. <<

When you have superpowers, you can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

>> Just because this graphic novel doesn't show him doing so, that doesn't mean he can't, hasn't, or won't. That's a lame rationalization, sure, but the comics never show Supes taking a crap, or sexing-up Lois, or picking his nose—but surely he must do some of this sometimes? <<

After sixty-plus years, I think we have a good idea of what Supes does and doesn't do.

>> Have you ever had a teacher (coach/parent/boss) who insisted on doing your work for you, rather than letting you learn how to do it yourself? In a small way, Clark is doing it a better way—because he's affecting change on a personal, primal level. Like a good parent, or teacher, or coach. <<

Should the US president, the UN Secretary General, or any leader with a worldwide forum (like Pope John Paul II or Nelson Mandela) spend their time helping people one by one? I don't think so. These and a few hundred other examples show that leaders can and do foster change at the national or international level.

>> He could also set up a pretty impressive dictatorship, forcing all of the world's nations to tow the line he chose. Humanity could very easily be subjugated by guys like Superman. KINGDOM COME addressed this, to some extent—humanity might fear OR respect these types, but not both. <<

A lot of series have addressed that point: from WATCHMEN to SQUADRON SUPREME to the ARMAGEDDON 2001 annuals. Some are more persuasive than others.

>> Perhaps Supes' "managerial style" is to let people (all humanity) choose its own path, rather than lording over them. <<

Superman isn't letting the people of Metropolis lead their own lives, since he interferes in their lives regularly. He's choosing whom to save and whom to let die every moment he's awake. So what's his justification for saving predominantly white Americans from bank robberies, fires, or plane crashes but ignoring death by war or hunger in, say, Africa?

If your answer is that he's an American, what's his justification for not moving to an urban inner city or an Indian reservation or wherever the death rate is highest? With all the other heroes there, Metropolis doesn't need his help as much as the rest of America does. It's myopic selfishness—the same attribute shown at the beginning of PEACE ON EARTH—for Supes to live where it's safe and comfortable.

>> Its a variation on the Judeo-Christian ethic—free will, and all that. <<

Would Superman stop the terrorist-controlled planes from crashing into the WTC? Would he also stop US bombers from blowing up innocent children in Iraq or Afghanistan? I think we know the answers to these questions. Superman is propping up the American status quo at the expense of real change—exactly as Batman said in DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.

>> If DC's Superman were perfect, and a mental giant without basic human needs, sure. <<

If someone isn't a mental giant, he should surround himself with people smarter than him and take their advice. See Dubya Bush for an example.

Superman 24/7?
>> Yes, he might be able to devote 24/7 to humanity—but at the price of his own sanity? Which is worse? A "negligent" superman, or an insane one? <<

Superman could do a lot more with the same amount of time and effort. He doesn't need to drive himself insane to change the world for the better.

>> As for Wonder Woman, good for her. I'm glad she has the resources and frame of mind to pursue those activities. But NOT all nuns are Mother Theresa. Some teach music in inner city schools, others fly around Capistrano with their over-sized habits. <<

Superman has the means and the opportunity to do more than he's done. He even tried to do more. The question is why he failed and what he should do about it, not whether he should try.

>> Read recent issues of Superman, post-Our Worlds at War, to see what all Superman has done (and what he's wisely left to human beings to engineer). <<

There isn't much I consider "wise" about letting people die when you can do something about it. If you're a self-appointed defender of truth, justice, and the American way, you make sure you defend these things. If you're a defender only of the white, middle-class status quo in Metropolis, you may need a new slogan.

>> Yeah, your point being? American superdudes ARE ridiculous—they wear capes, put on their underwear last, and call themselves by names like Ultraman, Megaman, and Hyperman. They're inane. <<

That's my point!

>> But they're also just comic books, escapism. <<

Yes, and they're just losing readers and market share. Sounds like the pure escapism model isn't working and publishers should consider changing it.

>> Sure, literature, film, and music CAN elevate human consciousness and effect social change. But they don't have to; and the heroes of our entertainment sometimes are just vehicles to advance the rollercoaster to the peak. <<

I'm arguing that some, not all, should try. Let's look again at how WATCHMEN and DARK KNIGHT RETURNS fared. Hmm. More relevance and social commentary than most comics => wide popular and critical acclaim => major transformation of the industry => big profits for most comics publishers. And the problem with that model is...?

>> Remember when Roy Thomas had the Nazis throw a mystic shell over Europe and the Pacific theatre so DC heroes couldn't get into the fray? <<

Yes. I'd prefer it if today's publishers invented some rationale like that for superheroes not acting. It would be more plausible than Superman's try-and-give-up approach.

>> Neil Adams and Denny O'Neil were among the first to deal with social relevence in comics, and their Green Lantern/Green Arrow books are classics. Today, they read as pretentious and dated (like TV's Dragnet, Room 222, or All in the Family), but still entertaining. <<

I agree, except most episodes of All in the Family (like most episodes of I Love Lucy) remain artistically compelling. That's because their creators knew how to make timeless art. They weren't pandering to the lowest common denominator, unlike some comic book publishers.

Escapism vs. art
>> But comics are still mostly ESCAPISM, like Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Buffy. Issues can be dealt with. But not every week or month. <<

The original Star Trek attempted a morality play more often than not. I'd contrast that with Star Wars, which was more or less pure escapism. It could've been a lot more significant, but settled for being a shoot-'em-up space opera.

Star Wars has the same tired feel that GREEN LANTERN/GREEN ARROW has, albeit for different reasons. Star Trek and All in the Family remain fresh. Similarly, I can read DARK KNIGHT RETURNS endlessly without getting bored, while most old Superman stories don't excite me. The lesson seems clear.

>> Sadly, I'm almost certain they will. Because I LIKE guys in long underwear hitting each other. <<

I like the superhero concept, but I don't think "hitting each other" is central to it. To give one recent example, Spider-Man's battle with Morlun was largely a waste of paper, but the present Avengers/Kang war is intriguing because of its complex machinations.

I'm sure we could find many other examples of "pure escapism" failing. Where are Marvel's M2 books or various incarnations of Nova, for instance?

>> But WWF (of which I am NOT a fan) does it better. And CGI can make Keanu Reeves look like Shang Chi. <<

Right...so comics shouldn't try to compete with them. They should do what they do best, which is complex visual storylines a la DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. Comics that primarily feature people hitting each other are a waste of time and effort. They're doomed to fail, if you ask me.

>> Actually, I was talking about the MARKETING of comics, which are still treated like red-headed stepchildren of corporations like AOL/Time-Warner and Revlon/Toy Biz/Whomever. <<

Okay, well...my position is that both the marketing and content need to grow up. Publishers need to offer more mature content and market that content more maturely.

>> But you're right. And wrong. <<

I partly agree with that!

>> For some readers, more mature and discerning, comics must be better written, dealing with real-world issues, solving real-world problems. For others, comics need more big guns, big boobs, and four-letter words. <<

Comics have enough of the latter already. They need more of the former. "More" doesn't mean publishers should abandon the low end and target only mature readers. "More" means more.

>> Economics will decide which is the better suitor. <<

Yes, but publishers have to try more sophisticated comics...and market them in more sophisticated ways...before "economics" has a fair chance to judge between them. We haven't seen nearly enough of that, especially in the major Super/Bat/Spider/X-type books.

>> I am not optimistic about the future of comic books, though many are better written and illustrated than ever. <<

Me neither!

The lowest common denominator
>> But the lowest common denominator rule still applies, and until the AVERAGE person can pick up a comic book and accept it as literature, not a throwaway piece of juvenalia <<

The key step would seem to be making comics that are literature and not throwaway pieces of juvenalia. Why can't more comics be like MAUS or SANDMAN or the best of X-MEN?

>> Hey, I'm enjoying the dialogue—but shouldn't you be publishing a comic book or graphic novel, not wasting all this time on the internet? <<

Hey, I waited a month to reply. I try to put my discussions and debates in the proper perspective.

Meanwhile, I'm nudging various prospects along. Part of that is keeping in touch with people (i.e., networking). You never know when someone will come up with a key idea or contact.

I've got some Native events this month that could cement some major Native support. I also hope to begin applying to publishers soon, starting with Image. Things would move along faster if terrorists stopped attacking the US and I had a partner or two (or more). <g>

Related links
Steve Bates:  Comics need a mature approach to promotion, selling, and advertising
Undressed for success:  superheroes without costumes
Pop culture:  time to get serious
The future of comics

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .