Ns: The Atlantic article "The Trouble with Superman"

[alicemacher]

Asher Elbein, writing for TheAtlantic.com, discusses declining Superman sales and DC's history of attempts to "fix" the character, whether by adding or subtracting powers, tinkering with his costume, making his personality and that of his supporting cast darker and edgier, launching one "reboot" after another, or some combination of the above.

"The irony of all this is that, for all the rust and ineffectual tinkering, the storytelling engine built by Siegel and Shuster still runs. Superman remains as inspirational a character as he did during the Great Depression: Considering the current state of rampant income inequality, brutal law enforcement and corrupt politics, the immigrant superhero from the planet Krypton may be more relevant now than he has been in years. What the comic requires now is not another reboot, but a forceful, committed attempt to refine the engine that currently exists—to stop trying to make Superman something he’s not, and to focus instead on what he is."

Should Superman be returned to his Siegel/Shuster roots? Discuss.

Comments

[lego_joker]

I doubt it would work. The public image of Superman is far too mired in the Silver Age (which, like it or not, *was* the era where he was DC's undisputed golden boy).

Also, making superheroes that actually, explicitly stand for social justice is always a dicey business, especially when it comes to characters like Superman who are 1.) touted as all-powerful, and 2.) expected to sustain a franchise into infinity and beyond. See also: why Wonder Woman's always had a problem getting stable financial/public footing.

[doomedpatroller]

They lost what made Superman great in the New52.

[rainspirit]

You sure it wasn't lost in books like Grounded?

[locuatico]

Everyone gets awful arcs every now and then. Grounded, Red/Blue Superman, every "24 hours superman all the time" story arc ever, etc. they were awful, and some had problematic elements on them (Superman: I, an alien immigrant, am going to tell you, alien immigrants, that alien immigrants do not belong here with a straight face), but hardly broke the character because the mythos he had built over the years were still there for him to fall back into when those stories failed.
Nu52 does not have that, they have eliminated 90% of the mythos he had built pre-flashpoint so they lost their safety net. what they do with Nu52 Superman, they have to stick to it because they literally have no choice.
It's true that continuity can be a problem to bring in new readers, but it is there for a reason.

[laughing_tree]

I disagree because you don't need continuity to channel that mythos. Works like All-Star Superman prove that.

[locuatico]

OF course it didn't, you don't need to use them to make the story good, you only need them in case you screw up.

[alschroeder3]

Of COURSE they should.

[rainspirit]

The problem with Superman is symptomatic of the problem with DC, which seems to be that they've stopped believing in their own superheroes. None of them are allowed to be married, none of them are allowed to be happy. You can't tell good stories with an all-encompassing model like that, and until it's addressed with better leadership then DC is always going to churn out inferior comics, no matter how good the talent.

[jaybee3]

Exactly. I keep thinking back to the Avengers vs JLA mini-series where basically the Marvel Heroes were amazed that JLA/DC heroes were treated as such by the DC populace and that it really meant something in the DC world to be a "hero". Didio & Co. just a few years later basically turned DC into a darker version of the Marvel Universe, where the heroes are unheroic (Identity Crisis), where fans who complain about the dark and gritty turn are mocked and ridiculed and turn into strawman villains (Infinite Crisis/Superboy-Prime), where "evil wins" (Final Crisis) and a reboot where the in-universe population of the DCU hates their own heroes (never more obvious than in Superman).

Then of course there's the elimination of anyone over 40 (including the JSA, formerly a flagship franchise for the company) and no one is allowed to be married. Even couples that clearly ARE married and act like it (Aquaman and Mera) in the new 52 are denied by the company to actually be married. It's all bizarro, and explains why they are semi-rebooting AGAIN.

[janegray]

Hear hear.

[jaxjyls]

So, like Morrison's early Action Comics run?

[locuatico]

Morrison's Action Comic had the elements of the golden age, but not the essence of it. Like, in the golden age stories he feels heroic while in Morrison's he reads more like a bully.

[lego_joker]

I kind of feel that's inevitable, given how modern comics are executed; the Golden Age and the Modern Age weren't just different in story elements and tone, but a lot of more invisible things.

GA Superman (and Batman too, for that matter) was very clearly aimed at small children first and foremost, because it's immensely clear that the writers aren't interested in exploring any ramifications of Superman's actions or getting into his head; it's all about the immediate wonder and catharsis of him beating up wife-beaters and threatening crooked lobbyists.

In the modern age, no matter how much you want to evoke past ages, you pretty much *have* to take your settings and characters a little more seriously. And that often, if not inevitably, leads to very uncomfortable territory.

[akodo_rokku]

I was thinking exactly this.

[q99]

I agree, a lot of the time what characters who seem adrift need is not a new purpose, but simply a focusing and celebration of what's needed.


New directions and such have their uses- but sparring, and they work best when someone has had one status quo for awhile, whether that status quo has been high selling or not.

[lucean]

I can't say I agree much with the author of the article, they kind of started to lose me at the very beginning of the article. For example, even with MoS, instead of pointing that the reaction for it was divisive with some loving it, the author went with the sharp criticism. Or with the comparison sales they went with the current Batman run which is at a insane high, but didn't bother giving the context.

This isn't nitpicking, at least I hope it isn't, but that more I read the article, the more it felt throughout representative of that attitude of presenting it as an easy solution while attacking dark story telling while kind of ignoring that a lot of the attempts at the Superman storytelling hasn't even been dark or gloomy.

[laughing_tree]

Is it just me or does pretty much every one of these "This is what Comic Publisher X should do to increase sales" posts/articles/etc. really boil down to "This is what I personally would like to read"?* Just once, I'd like to see someone go, "I actually wouldn't like to read comics like this much, but, putting on my sales analyst hat, I think it'd be good for the company."


*Not that that necessarily makes all such articles wrong. The two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

[lucean]

Completely agreed. I understand why it happens and I have no problem with articles that explain why they enjoy certain aspects of a character and would like to see more of it. My issue is with articles like this that basically start cherry picking data so that they can proclaim their version of the character is totes the most financially profitable which always makes my head hurt.

By the way, the Beat has pretty good comic book sales analysis if you are interested.

[sagrada]

Never just you, but I massively prefer that to attempting to analyze things from a detached and objective viewpoint since that's nigh-indistinguishable from guesswork when it comes to shambling, horrifyingly amateurish messes like modern superhero comic book deals. You could maybe have predicted, based on how different and distinct it was, that Harley Quinn's series would be a hit, but its massive success came totally out of left field.

At least we know for sure what this guy likes and can agree or disagree on whether or not that would be any good, rather than sorting out statistical analysis on what the character of Superman has been most successful at in the sliding scale of tastes, artistic eras and political backdrops. The answer would inevitably be some flavour of "Maybe this might work a little better, I guess?" no matter what it was.

[laughing_tree]

I don't have a problem with it, I just think people should be more honest about it (to others, to themselves). You'd prefer comics a certain way? Great! But don't pretend it's about sales and then, like lucean mentions, cherrypick data to support your position.

[laughing_tree]

Are people actually reading the article? It identifies Greg Pak and Aaron Kuder's current Superman as a version who *has* gone back to those roots, and it challenges DC to continue with that direction instead of abandoning it.

[palgrave_goldenrod]

To be fair, though, the Pak-Kuder approach of "let's basically strip away almost everything that people recognise about Superman" isn't without its own issues, which are worth bringing up as well and are relevant to the ones the article discusses, even if it is overall favourable towards their work. I haven't really been following the run the run that closely beyond the general details, so can't and won't really speak to its quality, but it's pretty telling that what's widely seen as one of the most socially relevant arcs that the character has seen in a while is also a run in which pretty much everything that people associate with Superman -- his secret identity, his job as a reporter, his powers, his costume, the awe and respect he gets from everyone, his friendships with Lois Lane, Perry White, etc. -- has either been taken from him or altered quite drastically. This can, not entirely unreasonably, be read as suggesting that DC / the authors feel that the only 'real' way to tell a Superman story that addresses these kind of roots is to change almost everything that's come to be iconic and recognised with Superman over the years. Which, in turn, doesn't exactly help with the perception that DC are embarrassed by Superman and / or obsessed with justifying his existence or completely altering and distorting him in order to try and catch the lightning that the article discusses.

After all, they say that Greg Pak is "leaning into" this idea and that "it's a good start", not that he's completely fixed all these problems.

[owlbrigade1]

Personally I think the trouble with modern Superman, or at least the trouble with DC, is the insistence on everyone being "badass". The pursuit of "badass" is driving everything, but they don't know what that is so they've cherry picked the most superficial bits of that and decided it means mopey, violent, selfish, and just plain mean. None of that ever fits with Superman and mostly -with a couple of exceptions- it fits a supervillain better than a superhero. Frankly I find society's general lauding of this nebulous "badass-ness" to be a pretty toxic thing overall, and I'm ready for some examples who can be moral (but not moralizing) and upstanding instead. I want my heroes not to reassure me it is okay to be petty and violent, but to tell me that it is far better to do the right thing and to pursue hope and dreams.

DC seems to see it differently right now, which is why we are barely on speaking terms. DC, and a notable sub-segment of fans, seem to think that comics must be taken seriously and nobody will take them seriously if they aren't this "badass" miserable books about brooding and moody sociopaths.

[bradygirl_12]

I guess if comics can wallow in gore and sadism, they can support a Social Crusader Superman. Funny how people are okay with the former and are uncomfortable with the latter.

[sagrada]

Social justice has always been one of those things that people are more comfortable with when it's happening somewhere else. If things are the way you like it already, the idea that it needs to be improved for somebody else must seem baffling.

[wizardru]

The article is, IMHO, just a lot of hogwash.

Let me see if I get this straight: poor, poor Superman. He's only managed to stay in constant print for over 75 years. When OH WHEN will DC get him right? Why won't they try some alternate take or alter his formula? Yadda Yadda Yadda. This article could have been written 20,30 40 year ago and not changed an iota. It also colors events pretty wildly to ignore certain details that would derail its core argument.

Let's start with book sales: yes, Superman is selling around 55K...but he appears in Four monthly titles alone, right? Not counting his appearances in Justice League titles. Moreover, counting sales from 6 years ago only highlights how numbers on all titles continue to drop for monthly titles, with trades and things like Comixology taking up some of the slack. Also, that doesn't factor cover price changes. If his contention is that somehow Superman doesn't sell? Shenanigans. Even if you just factor comics, he sells more than most characters not named Batman.

Second, the notion that Superman is constantly reinvented and it fails is equally ridiculous. Byrne's Man of Steel was one of several reinventions at DC at that time. Batman Year One and Perez's Wonder Woman run both occurred just a matter of months after it, as part of DC's larger initiative at reboots. Likewise the Death of Superman and Knightfall fell so close together. And honestly, Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen were some fantastic comics, IMHO.

I mean, I guess what I find incomprehensible is the idea that Superman is somehow a failure in this writer's eyes. Name another character in comics that has been through so many changes, revamps, updatings and changes and continues to hold his place in pop culture. I mean, one of the gags that was in Superman '78 was Clark running to a phone booth to change, only to find one of the 'new' unenclosed phone kiosks as a callback gag to the classic schtick of the Fleischer cartoons and TV Show of the 50s. Now consider the fact that THAT movie is nearly 40 years old.

I mean, by what yardstick are we to measure that Superman needs fixing? Superman can be written better or worse, but it's almost like this writer understands the publishing factoids, but not the way comics actually works.