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.

Superman is smarter—at least his brain works a lot faster—than Batman.

How can Mr. Sullivan claim that Superman is smarter than Batman?

Especially given the fact that absent his powers, Superman becomes nothing more than a shell of a brute, useless in almost every way.

This has further been exemplified in latter-day tales that have perpetuated the myth that is Superman.

Whereas Batman, who has no actual super powers to rely on except for his ingenuity, he can usually be counted on to think on his feet and devise ever clever solutions to almost any difficult circumstances. (His marvelous contraptions alone are manifest proof of the man’s sheer brainpower.)

Compare with Superman who usually wins the day merely by brute force, if anything.

voces,

you are describing the Frank Miller version of Superman, and as presented by him you’re perfectly correct. However probably not even Miller would deny that Kal-El has a super-brain as well as super-muscles and so forth. Again, it’s just that he doesn’t use it well. For Miller Superman’s faults are primarily moral: he’s basically both naive and a coward, and this makes him stupid. Furthermore one can have enormous cognitive ability and still be more or less an idiot when it comes to making right decisions or coming to the correct conclusion. I’m sure we each know at least one impressively clever person whose opinions are nevertheless almost uniformly moronic. Look at politicians! Whatever your leanings are, there are certainly intelligent people on the opposite side who you think constantly do, say, and think ridiculous things, regardless of their pure mental powers. It’s just not reasonable to believe that only people with IQs of less than 100 can be Republicans, say. But you might see lots of Republicans with PhDs spouting what you judge to be inanities and call them idiots, using the term secundum quid,, in a certain respect, rather than absolutely. They are stupid (ex hypothesi) because of a profoundly flawed ideology and their unexamined adherence to it, rather than because of any cognitive defects. And of course Republicans might believe the same of Democrats. We have to judge between their positions, just as we have to side with either Superman or Batman in a Frank Miller book, based on the wisdom of each course of action and the mental orientation that leads to it, rather than by giving either side an IQ test and seeing who comes out ahead.

One can of course still have a fairly lunk-headed Superman without accusing him of these moral faults, which is how I remember the portrayal in Loeb and Sales’ “Superman For All Seasons”, though I only read it once and it was a long time ago.

Many other stories, however, including recent ones, would not accept any part of the Miller “iconography”. For instance Grant Morrison’s “All-Star Superman” shows its titular hero as, among other things, a colossal genius, inventing technologies beyond human comprehension, tinkering with the basic elements of life, and peering into the deepest mysteries of the physical universe. Of course this kind of Superman is hard to contrast with Batman in a satisfying way, as they seem to simply belong to different cosmi. One might be tempted to chalk up the different versions to people who are at some basic level more sympathetic or attuned to either Superman or Batman—so that if you’re a Batman person Superman needs to be able to provide a good contrast—if not for the fact that Morrison has also written some very good Batman stories.

Now that I’m thinking about it, however, it occurs to me that no matter which kind of Superman you’re dealing with, there’s one moral failing that it’s almost impossible to avoid accusing him of: laziness. As Clark Kent he spends an awful lot of time on a mundane career and his private relationships, which might very well seem like a waste for someone with his potential. What makes Bruce Wayne so exceptional is not merely his extraordinary natural capacities but, even more than this, the fact that he attempts to use every single waking moment actualizing those capacities and putting them to the best use he can find for them. It’s telling that, though Batman could never save the planet from a cosmic threat the way Superman can, Bruce Wayne does far more good as a philanthropist, patron, researcher, etc., than Clark Kent does as a reporter—and that’s just part of the front.

This laziness of Superman’s seems to stem partly from his ambivalence about his identity, and partly from a willingness to fall back on his physical strength when there’s a crisis. He’s never been forced to develop the habit of thinking strategically (of course he can use his various strengths to different tactical advantages), whereas Batman is the ultimate strategist (precisely because physical training can only take him so far), and always has a judo-move to turn Superman’s strength against him if he has to.

Mr. Sullivan:

Well, apart from what you mentioned in the latter paragraph of your comments; for me, it is precisely Batman’s/Bruce Wayne’s natural human limitations that are the most endearing and consequential, which are, in fact, the very things that not only provide him those significant opportunities to excel above and beyond the natural bounds of his human person but ironically also enable him to do so and conquer those very obstacles, which Superman (i.e., the character of earlier, the 1950s George Reeves’ Adventure of Superman, and current serials, Smallville) seems only capable of doing so by brute strength alone.

Yet, I must admit, I’ve never run across an analysis concerning the subject matter as eloquent and well thought-out as yours.

The following is the kind of run-down I’ve typically encountered concerning the topic:

Top Ten Reasons Why Batman Kicks Superman’s Ass:

10. The Batcave.

9. Superman’s secret identity is a clumsy, nerdy reporter with glasses. Batman’s: billionaire playboy.

8. The Batplane.

7. Batman wears a cool black and gray costume. Superman looks like someone vomited rainbow all over him.

6. Superman is an alien. You know… like E.T.

5. Batman doesn’t need any powers to beat up bad guys.

4. The Batmobile.

3. Batman’s purple and green arch-villain: Joker. Superman’s purple and green arch-villain: Mr. Mxyzptlk.

2. Frank Miller says so.

1. To Batman, Kryptonite is a paperweight.