Interesting Wired Superman Article

[Forsaken_One]

The Myth of Superman (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/myth.html) by Neil Gaiman and Adam Rogers (taken off of a link on Neil Gaiman's blog (http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/)) has, like the title says, some interesting thoughts on Superman.

Um... enjoy!

[dupersuper]

Gotta love Neil G.; the whole "that's who he really is" part reminded me of the speech at the end of Kill Bill.

[Ilash]

Gotta love Neil G.; the whole "that's who he really is" part reminded me of the speech at the end of Kill Bill.

Yeah but if it was really that similar, Gaiman would have inserted that part into an article about tropical fish. ;)

My problems with Tarantino's often self-indulgent dialogue aside, that was one fantastic article. Gaiman is just one hell of a writer no matter what the subject or medium.

[NotSuper]

I really enjoyed the article. I wonder what a Superman story written by Gaiman would be like?

[Ilash]

I really enjoyed the article. I wonder what a Superman story written by Gaiman would be like?

How about awesome beyond words?

Forget The Eternals, I want Gaiman as the surprise new writer of Action Comics!

[NotSuper]

How about awesome beyond words?

Forget The Eternals, I want Gaiman as the surprise new writer of Action Comics!
I wonder why DC has never done this before? Having Gaiman on one of the books would make it both a critical and commercial success.

[Alan2099]

DC doesn't wan the Superman creative team to be as big of a name as the title character.

[Apathy Boy]

Of course, it's more likely that Neil Gaiman just isn't interested in writing Superman on a lengthy basis. He's not a prolific writer to begin with, and he doesn't seem to be particularly interested in conventional superheroes.

And after reading that article, I'm glad about that. I think Gaiman misses the point of the character in many ways. Bad enough that he trots out that lame old falsehood about Superman having a lame rogues gallery, but then he trots out the awful pap about Clark Kent being a disguise.

I have never understood why people seem to think alter egos are an "either/or" concept. Superman is not either Superman or Clark Kent. He is both Superman and Clark Kent. Mild-mannered, fumbling Clark Kent is not an act. Clark is the ultimate outsider, the strange visitor from another planet, and his awkwardness in dealing with people he cares for is a reflection of that. That's genuine. But deep down, he's a really great guy, and he wishes people could see him for who he really is. That's Superman, and that's genuine too.

But Gaiman is right about one thing. We love Superman for trying.

[NotSuper]

I have never understood why people seem to think alter egos are an "either/or" concept. Superman is not either Superman or Clark Kent. He is both Superman and Clark Kent. Mild-mannered, fumbling Clark Kent is not an act. Clark is the ultimate outsider, the strange visitor from another planet, and his awkwardness in dealing with people he cares for is a reflection of that. That's genuine. But deep down, he's a really great guy, and he wishes people could see him for who he really is. That's Superman, and that's genuine too.
While I can appreciate your dislike of the "either/or" situation, I have to point out that mild-mannered Clark is the disguise in current canon. The real person is the guy in the suit AND the guy on the farm. But "Metropolis Clark" is Superman/Clark acting mild-mannered, clumsy, and non-confrontational. Again, this is not my opinion--it's canon.

But Gaiman is most likely speaking of the pre-Crisis Superman anyway. It's no secret that a lot of writers prefer that version of the character. Gaiman himself seems to get Superman better than a lot of writers that have or will write Superman, DC would be extremely lucky to get him to write the character. It would be akin to Alan Moore writing Superman again.