The Man of Steel is Dead

[LibrarianThorne]

So, I just read the latest issue of Action Comics, and I must say that I'm shocked. Clark's monologue as he floated above Metropolis seemed so... out of character. Especially the line "They look like ants," said as he looked down on Metropolis from the clouds.

That's not my Superman. That's something Lex Luthor says as he looks down on Metropolis from the LexCorp tower (iun fact, I believe he says it in Lex Luthor: Man of Steel, though I could be wrong). The whole thing dehumanized Superman, I think. Yes, I understand that they have to explain why he's, mentally, Superman again after being Clark for a year. But it seems that instead of using that year to make Superman more relatable (the thing that most people don't like about Superman is that he's hard to relate to), Clark brushes that year off and in so doing seems to brush off the human aspect that Byrne's origin enforced.

This is really quite a long rant and it seems to be over such a trivial matter, but if Clark's reason for being Superman is to protect ants, then I really don't feel a connection to the character any more. What happened to Superman being the "most human of us all"? A man who could fly and yet didn't look down on the rest of us. That's Superman. We're not ants to Superman, we're living breathing beings who deserve his help because of the good he knows we can do. Superman saves the day because he believes that we can make tomorrow better than today. He's not shepherding an ant farm, he's helping us along to a future that he knows will be better and grander than any we can imagine. Superman is more human than us because he sees the best in us, no matter what we do. Superman hopes for a better tomorrow because he sees it in each of us. Superman is among us, though he is not one of us (something the monologue did nail, I think), but he is among us because we deserve him that way and he wants to be Clark Kent.

When you get right down to it, Superman is waiting for the day he doesn't have to save. The innocents he won't have to help. Only then can he be who he really is, that klutz in the glasses with the goofy smile named Clark Kent.

Okay, rant over.

[NotSuper]

When you get right down to it, Superman is waiting for the day he doesn't have to save. The innocents he won't have to help. Only then can he be who he really is, that klutz in the glasses with the goofy smile named Clark Kent.
I don't believe Superman is waiting for the day he doesn't have to save people. In fact, I don't think he'd be happy unless he was helping people. That's likely why he became such a good reporter (before he obviously couldn't give it his all--he would've eclipsed his co-workers) after he lost his powers. While being Superman can often be a burden, I think Clark/Kal would rather have the job than to be a "regular" human. As for Superman really being a klutz in glasses--he isn't. That's never been who he really is. He acts mild-mannered to save lives. Without his powers he was able to shed that facade and instead be his true self. Only people like the Kents, Lois, Lana, and Pete know the real Clark Kent because if everyone else knew he couldn't do his job effectively. In essense, the guy in the suit is the same guy that the Kents raised. His powers are a gift, not a curse. He loves humanity but knows he isn't human himself and can never be one, nor would he choose to be. If he was to become a human he couldn't save as many people, and thus he wouldn't be as happy. Furthermore, his powers are biologically natural for him. Why would he want to change what he is?

I think you misunderstood the scene anyway. Superman wasn't "looking down" on human beings or seeing them as inferior. The comment about them looking "like ants" was a literal statement--he's far up and looking at them without his telescopic vision. If he looked down on humans he wouldn't have married one and he wouldn't care about his adoptive parents so much. No, Superman loves humans and his love is all the more pure since he has nothing obligating or forcing him to love them. That, to me, is such a beautiful altruistic concept. Superman's unique heritage allows him to look at things more objectively than other, human heroes. He can look at them in two perspectives: as a human and as an alien. This is a very positive thing because it makes Superman arguably one of the most unbiased heroes.

I don't want to get into a rant myself, so I'll just sum up my feelings: Superman isn't forced to be Superman, he chooses to be. Likewise, he chooses who he is, regardless of what he is biologically, or who raised him, or who society wants him to be. It's his choice and his alone.

[greenlanternslight1979]

i agree whole heartedly.superman loves every man,woman and child on the planet even the ones who dont deserve it.he is the most pure of all heroes he leads by example.but see he is the goofy farmboy the iconic hero and the common man all rolled into one.to think he would insult the people he adopted as his own kind would be insane.hes not perfect but as close to it as anyone has ever seen.alan moore said it best there once was man perfect man who came from the sky and did no wrong.just sayin...

[shyguy]

Uh, yeah, I think that's just a really bad misinterpretation of that scene.

As NotSuper said, Superman is looking down on everybody without using telescopic vision. Of course everyone looks like ants!

Anyway, even allowing the misinterpretation of that scene, it seems kind of silly to give that line more importance than all the stuff he says about helping people and whatever else just a few lines later.

[JulianPerez]

Relax, LibrarianThorne, chill. The statement was a descriptive one, which was intended to show Superman's enjoyment and exilaration of being able to fly again after a year of being grounded.

He was flying and having a great time with it, and THAT'S what that statement was showing.

[GreenHornet]

You have ever right to feel that way.

[Ian J.N.]

That's not my Superman. That's something Lex Luthor says as he looks down on Metropolis from the LexCorp tower (iun fact, I believe he says it in Lex Luthor: Man of Steel, though I could be wrong). The whole thing dehumanized Superman, I think. Yes, I understand that they have to explain why he's, mentally, Superman again after being Clark for a year. But it seems that instead of using that year to make Superman more relatable (the thing that most people don't like about Superman is that he's hard to relate to), Clark brushes that year off and in so doing seems to brush off the human aspect that Byrne's origin enforced.
Yeah, as others have said, Superman wasn't being arrogrant. He's expressing the alienation that comes from having his powers. "On this world, under this sun, I have astounding powers. A gift, conferred on me by cataclysm and destiny. And all they cost me -- all they cost me -- is the ability ever truly to be one of those people below."

In his WORDBALLOON interview (http://www.wordballoon.com/BUSIEK.html), Busiek talks about that, saying something to the effect that those feelings of alienation, ironically, are what make Superman so human.

Regarding relatability, this is what Busiek had to say in a Pulse interview (http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=005038):
I think with Superman, it's not simply about "relatable." You need to have enough perspective on Superman to believe, at least to some degree, to ground those fantastic feats in reality. But while Clark is relatable -- Clark's what we might be, if we only had the world's biggest secret hidden inside -- Superman's larger than life. Suprman's the part of us that wants to soar, to fly, to bestride the Earth like a colossus and have everyone point and marvel and admire. Superman's the ideal we wish we were, and if you can believe in what he thinks and feels, if you can identify with a part of him, then it makes the giant colossal super-stuff all the more thrilling.

Superman has to do his laundry, just like the rest of us. But we don't care about that -- not unless that's our road in to a story of wonder and excitement, a starting point we share that makes us believe the fantasy. So it's not really about how Superman can be like us, but how Superman can make us feel like we're him -- taking us to exotic worlds and having thrilling adventures, even if it's just for 22 pages.

Spider-Man's the superhero who's a nebbish like us. Superman's the dream, the guy even Spider-Man would watch go by and think, "Ah, if only..."

You could argue that Byrne's Man of Steel characterization is dead, but I think Busiek's found a strong interpretation that connects with the reader.

[Damo]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go over there with the guys saying "you're reading too much into it". After a year of feeling more and more and more "normal", it's to be expected that he be looking around and almost be going "Whoah. Hey, the people look like ants!"

To me it wasn't that he was out of character. He was being writen as someone out of sorts.

[The Batman]

i took it to be either an expression of alienation from humans or an expression of almost childlike wonder. like when a kid goes to the top of the CN Tower and looks down and is awestruck by how the people on the ground look like ants.

[Ontir]

I LOVE the CN Tower!

The day we were up there, it was clear enough that we could look across Ontario, and just see (we were told) the Rochester area's shore!

[Dustin Griffin]

I thought it was out of character later in the issue when he said "what are you ants retarded? I'm the g**damned Superman!"

[Rylon]

You got it wrong, it's just DAMN! the whole book.

:D

[gloss]

I thought it was out of character later in the issue when he said "what are you ants retarded? I'm the g**damned Superman!"
Making Jimmy Olsen eat those rats went a bit beyond the pale as well.

[Citizen V]

I would say that Superman has gone through some changes,especially with things i have heard about his classic Smallville origin being replaced with something else.Im not sure if this is a good or bad thing,you should never change a comic icon.

[Dustin Griffin]

I would say that Superman has gone through some changes,especially with things i have heard about his classic Smallville origin being replaced with something else.Im not sure if this is a good or bad thing,you should never change a comic icon.

When you say "Smallville" origin, do you mean the origin portrayed on the Smallville television show? Because that origin has about a bazillion differences from his original origin.