Supermensch
Jeff links to this rather excellentLong story; short pier analysis of The Incredibles' Randian subtext (text?), which quotes Kill Bill: "When Superman wakes up in the morning, he is Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red S is the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby, when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears, the glasses, the business suit, that’s the costume. That’s the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He’s weak, unsure of himself… he’s a coward. Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the whole human race, sort of like Beatrix Kiddo and Mrs. Tommy Plumpton."
No. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
This interpretation of Superman, no thanks to Richard Donner, is a big part of the reason that Superman is no longer a viable character (as opposed to icon). The most obvious (and geekeriffic) rebuttal to this lies in the Batman/Superman dichotomy. Bats is dark, Supes is light. Bats is a vigilante, Supes is a hero. Bats is the man, Bruce Wayne is the costume, and Clark Kent is the man, Superman is the costume. The argument above is a nature over nurture reductionist take which I'm sure the creators of Smallville (in which Kal El was sent to Earth as a conqueror) love to bits.
But it's bull pucky.
Superman was raised by the Kents as an All-American Boy. He is modest, caring, and wants to use what he has to help those around him. But what he has isn't money or fame, it happens to be super powers. So Clark Kent is the man. He is most comfortable sitting at his desk, writing a column, or at his mother's kitchen table with a plate of pie. Sure he affects a few habits to throw people off of his decidedly followable trail: the glasses, the clumsiness (depending on what version you read). But these are not the be all and end all. In a "which one is the disguise" comparison, I'd say that Clark is far more comfortable asking Perry for a deadline than hovering over a crowd of gawking citizenry to say hello.
Most conclusive: If Superman were his true persona it would never have been so important for him to convince Lois to love Clark. Why would he want her to love the charade? He doesn't. Which is why he labors away to make her see Superman for the empty icon he is, and Clark for the man he is inside.
There's a two-page spread in the excellent first chapter of Matt Wagner's Trinity, in which Superman grabs a derailed L train and holds it above his head. His though bubble reads "Golly this is heavy." That's a perfect Superman moment to me, and I don't think Bill would like it one bit.
No. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
This interpretation of Superman, no thanks to Richard Donner, is a big part of the reason that Superman is no longer a viable character (as opposed to icon). The most obvious (and geekeriffic) rebuttal to this lies in the Batman/Superman dichotomy. Bats is dark, Supes is light. Bats is a vigilante, Supes is a hero. Bats is the man, Bruce Wayne is the costume, and Clark Kent is the man, Superman is the costume. The argument above is a nature over nurture reductionist take which I'm sure the creators of Smallville (in which Kal El was sent to Earth as a conqueror) love to bits.
But it's bull pucky.
Superman was raised by the Kents as an All-American Boy. He is modest, caring, and wants to use what he has to help those around him. But what he has isn't money or fame, it happens to be super powers. So Clark Kent is the man. He is most comfortable sitting at his desk, writing a column, or at his mother's kitchen table with a plate of pie. Sure he affects a few habits to throw people off of his decidedly followable trail: the glasses, the clumsiness (depending on what version you read). But these are not the be all and end all. In a "which one is the disguise" comparison, I'd say that Clark is far more comfortable asking Perry for a deadline than hovering over a crowd of gawking citizenry to say hello.
Most conclusive: If Superman were his true persona it would never have been so important for him to convince Lois to love Clark. Why would he want her to love the charade? He doesn't. Which is why he labors away to make her see Superman for the empty icon he is, and Clark for the man he is inside.
There's a two-page spread in the excellent first chapter of Matt Wagner's Trinity, in which Superman grabs a derailed L train and holds it above his head. His though bubble reads "Golly this is heavy." That's a perfect Superman moment to me, and I don't think Bill would like it one bit.
2 Comments:
Asa, you are very wise.
I like your points, though I see the dichotomy about 180 degrees off; Bruce may like to think the Bat's the real him, but we all know how unhealthy that is, and it's when he compromises his inhuman ideals to salvage his humanity that we, arguably, get the best (grim 'n' gritty) Bat stories; Supes, on the other hand, puts on the glasses to become Clark Kent, and takes them off to become himself again. (Though, as with any icon created by many different hands over such a long period of time, Superman is vast, and contains multitudes: he is also very much a wish fulfillment figure, and that's one reason to be found at the kernel of why it was so important that Lois love the man and not the myth.)
Anyway, if you'd like some further discussion more from your side of the fence than mine, check out this post and this one by Will Shetterly.
Post a Comment
<< Home