icon_uk (![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small} icon_uk) wrote in ![[community profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small} scans_daily, |
The problem being that countless other Silver Age traditionalists have taken Niven's essay as a gospel-truth explanation of why Superman can never have sex, in order to justify their beloved "love triangle" trope.
Like who? I've never once seen a writer acknowledge MoS/WoK as anything other than entertaining nonsense.
I guess what I hate about it is that I see it as part of a trend in superhero comics, in which fans and creators alike will condemn any semblance of mental, emotional, social or physical functionality or well-being within their superheroes as "unrealistic," given their powers, and then turn around and come up with the most outrageously impossible bullshit to keep them all miserable.
It was written in 1971 as a joke, I think it's a little late to suggest that it's a trend.
Like who? I've never once seen a writer acknowledge MoS/WoK as anything other than entertaining nonsense.
I guess what I hate about it is that I see it as part of a trend in superhero comics, in which fans and creators alike will condemn any semblance of mental, emotional, social or physical functionality or well-being within their superheroes as "unrealistic," given their powers, and then turn around and come up with the most outrageously impossible bullshit to keep them all miserable.
It was written in 1971 as a joke, I think it's a little late to suggest that it's a trend.
(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread)