Power given > power earned. Maybe. But to be human is be forced to master and develop that power, or be unhappy (or dead). What does Superman really have to teach us about mastering human power when his powers, definitionally, aren’t human? Like Ryan North said, even to make him confront human problems is to change his nature.

All of Superman’s powers are metaphors for human power. It’s like saying Oedipus has nothing to teach us about human situations because we don’t have prophets. Ryan North is ignoring a significant corpus of successful, authentic stories about Superman confronting human problems. (Lois & Clark, The Dark Night Returns, &c.)

Superman had to master and develop his powers as well, and this is frequently mentioned in Superman stories.

There were a lot of stupid things in that article. However: Batman > Superman = true. But this is the case because powers of the soul are greater than powers of the body. Superman isn’t forced to develop exceptional arete, or learn wisdom, and so he doesn’t. Superman is like Rocky (in the first movie, not the increasingly implausible sequels): he could have been something truly amazing, but instead he breaks thumbs for a living. Superman is smarter—at least his brain works a lot faster—than Batman, but he doesn’t use it properly.

All of Superman’s powers are metaphors for human power. I’ll admit that I’ve never thought deeply (or indeed much at all) about Superman, so this seems like a possibly true claim, if one that currently appears to me to require some serious straining to support (super-breath?). Similarly, the comparison to Oedipus doesn’t seem on the face of it to be particularly apt. I believe I jumped in a little hastily, however, given your stated intention of developing your thoughts more fully later. I’m almost entirely ignorant of those other stories you mention.

Oh, balderdash, hb. Of _course_ Superman’s powers are a metaphor for human ones—I feel fairly comfortable saying this without being overly familiar with the corpus. He’s not superness, he’s super-man. He negates man in certain determinate respects, which ties him to man all the more. He’s not Angel Man or Thought-thinking-itself-Man.

And power given is greater in a profound way than lesser, even developed power—that’s the whole point about power. Developed power is endlessly fascinating, to me at least, but it’s not scary like undeveloped power, which is, oddly, more initially noticeably powerful. The peacock fan of undeveloped possibilities, which could be good or bad. (“If only he had used his powers for good, not evil.” Now there’s pity and fear.)

Incidentally, I finally tracked down Mr. Harrell’s lecture about power at St. J’s library today, and he mentions Superman, actually, in the footnotes. Only in passing, but I can’t help feeling it’s obviously a subtle joke.

You are of course right, Mary, that they’re not definitionally nonhuman. I think my errors relate to the simplicity of the claimed metaphor. If I understand Nate correctly, he’s saying that all of Superman’s particular powers are metaphors for human beings’ power, in its singular and yet multifarious nature. (It was perhaps unfair of me to suggest that we should be particular about the connection of all of his powers, such as super-breath, to human power generally.) X-ray vision, super-strength, and super-speed seem like sheer extensions of human physical powers. The metaphor thus is “x is y plus this definite quality of x (unlimitedness),” whereas I’m used to thinking of metaphors as appearing simply as “x is y, where y is not literally applicable to x in any respect.” “Human power is x-ray vision” confuses me more than “God is a mighty fortress,” because the former looks very much like a direct representation. The metaphor was harder to see, and the sheer extension (superness) outshone the essential quality of the things extended.

Can I say, in the brief moment I have, that Thought-thinking-itself-man may be my new favorite superhero? (Other than you, Captain Vegetable!)

It is I, Captain Vegetable!
With my carrot, and my celery!
Eating crunchy vegetables is good for me!
They’re good for you, so eat them too,
for teeth so strong your whole life long
eat celery and carrots by the bunch!
Munch munch munch!

Carry on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzbbqVZ-eFo

Nate, me too. Would he save others, or just inspire people to save other people?

Hb pointed out I forgot Transubstantiation Man, the hero from dinner conversations with Trent, Aaron, and Anderson. He changes the final cause of his enemies, turning them into the Body of Christ.

The great thing about the T-Man is that he already exists, everywhere, depending on one’s theological beliefs. “Look, in the cassock, it’s Transubstantiation Man: otherwise known as a priest!”

I want also to point out to all those who doubt my opinions on nutrition (you know who you are) that Captain Vegetable’s little vignette embraces them entirely. Which two food types need to be refuted by vegetables? Candy and bread. Which food survives alongside vegetables? Meatballs. Like Andy and Eddie, your warped perception notes the foreign appearance of Captain Vegetable, but fails to appreciate his wisdom. It is only when confronted with the Captain’s tangible benefits that the truth of his position will become clear. Three cheers for Captain Vegetable, indeed.

I hate to say this, but I noted the same thing. We had a big-shot nutritionist speak at work last Friday who essentially promoted the exact same kind of diet.

Oh, flour-products. You were all so delicious.

You guys and your crazy crash dieting…

Yeah, I wanted to give you some credit for those opinions, T., but then I remembered the crazy crash dieting.

I’ve always thought that Superman stories are necessarily dull, because of the nature of his powers. His fundamental dilemma is about how far to interfere in human affairs. If he interferes, he ultimately infantilises the species, so that won’t do (or he ends up the puppet of corruption, as Miller describes). If he doesn’t interfere then all the stories about him are simply a human story (as his powers disappear from relevance). So lots of stories have to be about defending humanity as a whole from some sort of extra-terrestrial threat, which also allows for him to be challenged by a more or less equal, but again there are only a certain number of times that can be done and remain interesting.

PS I’d exempt ‘Red Son’ from that critique - I thought that was excellent.