Skip to Main Content
2009-12-11 20:51 (UTC)
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.
Reply to this
Thread from start
Post a comment in response:
This community only allows commenting by members. You may comment here if you're a member of
If you don't have an account you can
create one now
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
Check spelling during preview
This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.
Log in with OpenID?
Forget your password?
Site and Journal Search
Buy Dreamwidth Services
Gift a Random User
Site and Account