Tom Brevoort on Superman

[NotSuper]

Yeah, i mean, am I the only one who find this scary?

It is kind of scary, isn't it? Apparently, those who want to solve problems facing the poor are "grimdark" now. People are strange.

[Last Son]

It's odd to me that people are calling Superman "grim" because he wants to help people in poverty and stop the powerful from dehumanizing them. That, to me, is noble, and not at all grim.

I don't think it's so much helping the poor that makes people see him as grim as it is his methods. He's a little more violent than usual and sometimes terrorizes confessions out of corrupt businessmen and pisses off the police and military at times.. still even "grim" doesn't seem the right word for it. He's too.. fun-loving and vibrant to really be labeled as grim, I think.

[Auguste Dupin]

It is kind of scary, isn't it? Apparently, those who want to solve problems facing the poor are "grimdark" now. People are strange.

Well, I could say "this is America for you", but that would be my baseless and inherent antiamericanism talking (being french and all). So I don't say anything.

[The Batman]

That is an extremely limited and anecdotal definition of grim. All Superheroes Fight to change the world whether it is Batman or the Punisher. There was a great scene in jla/avengers where Superman says heroes do too much. That has always been a tenant of Superman to lrt people do things on their own. Now he feels he has to do more. Tq1hat is grimmer.

No, actually it's not grimmer. If anything, it's just more proactive. Do you have any other examples from the books that showcase this supposed grimness?

If he is dealing with actual social issues of the world, which is naturally more depressing than fighting fantasy villians, then that is far more grim.

No it's not. Certainly not if the point and purpose of those stories is to suggest that if we were to follow Superman's example and were to think and act better, that those social problems wouldn't be so insurmountable. That sort of optimism and hopefulness and desire to inspire is about as far from grim as you can get. Well unless we're just going to toss out the definition of grim altogether and use it as a blanket, meaningless smear for anything we don't much like.

[Mat001]

I don't see how this was a good situation to Lois which is what I asked. Superman gets to come home to someone and tell about his day. But Lois? If she wants to spend a night with her husband, she's a bitch for wanting that instead of him rushing off to help someone. To the readers if she expresses it and to herself if she acknowledges that feeling.

And often they did spend the night together. Only in story arcs where he was gone for hours and days, was that an issue and often it wasn't much of an issue. The only time it was an issue in the marriage was when Dominous was messing with Clark's mind and after Lois's father had died. But it was less about being their at night and more about his not being their to save her father. And she did have him to herself for a year without Superman being a factor. And once he got his powers back, she gave him his suit and encouraged him to go back to doing what made him happy.

I'm talking about how the marriage was an improvement to Lois since we've already talked about how it was for Superman. I've never felt this was a marriage of equals because Superman brought the whole world into the relationship. He couldn't help doing so and she got to be the one to deal with it. She didn't even get a chance to unload in the same fashion. She could bring the whole office into the relationship and it didn't matter because Clark probably wasn't there to notice.

Except he was there to notice and she did bring her issues with her into the marriage. Her concern about her job working for Lexcom, something which she detested but had no choice since Clark was unemployed and Metropolis was going through a rough patch. Her issues regarding that Lex was President of the United States which was equally hard on her, because of what Lex had done to her in the past. Like ruining her reputation by trying to discredit her. Her own uncertainty about being a mother which was brought up twice. Plus her family issues as I mentioned. Starting with her mother's illness and ending with her father eating a bullet and her sister hating her.

And talk about inlaws. Again, Lois doesn't have to deal with his. She has to deal with her own who get to see her make a life with someone while he's always gone for some odd reason. I know how that goes over with inlaws.

Except she did deal with Clark's family. The Kents. She loved Jonathan and Martha and they loved her right back. Not all in-laws are dicks. My paternal grandmother was a great woman compared to my stepfather's own mother. Two separate marriages, but two different in-laws. And in regards to Lois's family, well, Sam wasn't fond of Clark. But not because he was a reporter and always gone. Lois herself had been known to go off for weeks. Rather, he disliked Clark because he didn't measure up in his eyes. Be it the Donner inspired Clark or the football jock turned famous writer, Sam never really warmed up to Clark. Hell, half the time he didn't even know that he was gone for long stretches. Lucy and Ella didn't mind Clark and enjoyed his company.

I think we have different views of marriage. I didn't think I was especially scarred or unstable but it was an improvement to me. Really, marriage is rarely equal. Sometimes one has to carry a little more than the other. In fact, I think if you believe marriage isn't an improvement that really says its okay for Superman not to be married since its not actually doing anything for him.

Being married is about many things. Not all of it is equally the same. Not everyone's perspective is the same. If two people are healthy and stable enough on their own, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't get married. That just means that they are already well off and come together because of attraction and feelings of love and companionship. Some people might have their own neuroses, which in Lois's case had to do with her father. Clark's own feelings was that he was on the start of having a family that he could create, given that his people were mostly dead.

But back to Lois, like I said, marriage is rarely equal between the two spouses. I feel Clark and Lois's marriage was terribly unequal on a permanent basis. Really, if Lois has a dinner with family planned and Clark can't make it because of Superman duties, we all understand that. It does come first.

Which is no different from the two of them being reporters and having to duck out, which did happen a few times shortly after getting engaged. In fact, it was the first family get together of the Kents and the Lanes, when a phone call about a firebombing forced Lois and Clark to leave. Nor is it different from a firefighter having to rush off, if something happens and he or she has to go. Nor a doctor who has to get up to perform surgery or deliver a child.

But an equal marriage would be when there are times when the dinner comes first before the Superman duties. And that's just not going to happen. The fact that anything comes first at all times before your spouse is trouble.

Except real life has shown couples capable of maintaining a marriage. Police, firefighters, paramedics, federal agents and so on. Not all of their marriages are in trouble.

Yet Lois was expected to be the dutiful wife and just lost her strength. I guess you can guess I don't mind the marriage being over because it would be an improvement to Lois for it not to have existed. Superman not being married is really for story material as he never had to change his character to accomidate being married.

Except Lois did more than be than be the dutiful wife. She was still the kick ass reporter that she was before then. She uncovered Lex's corruption, discovered her father's involvement in the conflict with New Krypton, when to UMEC for weeks and was shot for it, she broke into the White House with Batman to get back the Kryptonite ring, talked with the Earth-22 Superman, brought her husband back from Dominous's control, tangled with Predators and Aliens, went to a Krypton that was created by Brainiac 13, uncovered improprieties at a power plant and more.

And if Quesada had written a nice, clean story to get rid of the marriage instead of that mess with Peter making a deal with the devil, hints that Mary-Jane was pregnant at the time, and the whole mess of unexplained questions, some of which lingered for years, nobody (well, almost nobody) would have given him that much grief about it.

The One More Day debacle was never about just the marriage being gone, that was just a really small part of it.

True. At least with DC it was done via history changing, allowing for Lois and Clark to remain as true to themselves as ever. And it at least didn't come across as heavy handed editorial interference. DiDio, Lee, Johns and Harras never said anything negative on the subject for years like Quesada did. When the big four at DC did speak on the subject, they at least said that they would try to make it work and when the reboot came, they were at least diplomatic about it.

And again I agree the way, that story was handle was just dumb that could had it where if helped peter with Aunt May. That at some point he would have to do something for Mephisto, when the time cause for it.

The real problem is that just before OMD came out, there was a story in Sensational Spider-Man where Peter was able to communicate with May and she encouraged him to let her go. That's when Peter should have listened to her, but because it was ignored, we had OMD and worse, OMIT.

I think having Mephisto involved in even teensy-tiniest capacity was really the wrong way to go with it.

Loki would've been better since it had been set up earlier that he owed Peter a great deal. His motivation would be more sound compared to Mephisto's.

[The Batman]

I don't think it's so much helping the poor that makes people see him as grim as it is his methods. He's a little more violent than usual and sometimes terrorizes confessions out of corrupt businessmen and pisses off the police and military at times.. still even "grim" doesn't seem the right word for it. He's too.. fun-loving and vibrant to really be labeled as grim, I think.

And even then, it also ignores the context of the superhero genre. Superheroes, by their very nature, address problems, most all problems, in dramatic, dynamic, violent ways. That sort of genre context and reading of the content matters. Otherwise we may as well label Home Alone a gritty look at child abandonment and home invasions.

[SubjectDelta]

I quoted your misspelling because it was amusing. The point was that making a leap that someone is paranoid about Newsarama out to "gey" them because they critiqued their analysis just sounds like the paranoid one might be someone else.



Nope, there is a such thing as out of context quotes. Look it up.

Well I am glad that even the context backs me up.

Kind of sounds to me like an excuse to see things however you want them regardless of any actual truth. The internet is famous for that.

[SubjectDelta]

Hem....
"grim (grm)
adj. grim·mer, grim·mest
1. Unrelenting; rigid.
2. Uninviting or unnerving in aspect; forbidding: "undoubtedly the grimmest part of him was his iron claw" (J.M. Barrie).
3. Ghastly; sinister: "He made a grim jest at the horrifying nature of his wound" (Reginald Pound). See Synonyms at ghastly.
4. Dismal; gloomy: a grim, rainy day.
5. Ferocious; savage: the grim advance of the pillaging army."

I have yet to see this Superman being depicted as either unrelenting, unnerving, sinister, gloomy, or ferocious. I am pretty sure that "grim" has never meant the opposite of "lazy". But to each their own.

Superman is probably the most unrelenting hero of all when it comes to his pursuit of evil. However, in all fairness, that seems like a lousy definition for grim.

He is rigid in his beliefs that his notion of justice is right though, otherwise he wouldn't fight against authority. Which isn't a bad thing, but it is grim.

[Auguste Dupin]

Superman is probably the most unrelenting hero of all when it comes to his pursuit of evil. However, in all fairness, that seems like a lousy definition for grim.

He is rigid in his beliefs that his notion of justice is right though, otherwise he wouldn't fight against authority. Which isn't a bad thing, but it is grim.

That's the definition of the free dictionary. I assume it covers at least the usual definitions of the word.
I don't think having a rigid notion of justice is grim, otherwise Pre Flashpoint Superman would be grim as well (unless you mean he had no notion of justice but that's doubtful).

[SubjectDelta]

No, actually it's not grimmer. If anything, it's just more proactive. Do you have any other examples from the books that showcase this supposed grimness?




No it's not. Certainly not if the point and purpose of those stories is to suggest that if we were to follow Superman's example and were to think and act better, that those social problems wouldn't be so insurmountable. That sort of optimism and hopefulness and desire to inspire is about as far from grim as you can get. Well unless we're just going to toss out the definition of grim altogether and use it as a blanket, meaningless smear for anything we don't much like.

If you stop to think this through then by your definition than no hero can be grim because they all fight to make things better. But if you look at nuances (which I have from the beginning) if someone thinks that something is so messed up that he has to change the world himself than that is a kind of grimness that goes beyond the old superman who figured humanity would be just fine if left alone by outside forces such as Lex Luthor.

[SubjectDelta]

That's the definition of the free dictionary. I assume it covers at least the usual definitions of the word.
I don't think having a rigid notion of justice is grim, otherwise Pre Flashpoint Superman would be grim as well (unless you mean he had no notion of justice but that's doubtful).

Well, according to your definition being rigid is grim. If we are going into the abyss of subjectivity here with what you think than I am free to think what I want as well without a million people telling me that Superman isn't grim at all, he's a regular Rainbow Bright (Hyperbole for the sake of levity).

[Auguste Dupin]

Well, according to your definition being rigid is grim. If we are going into the abyss of subjectivity here with what you think than I am free to think what I want as well without a million people telling me that Superman isn't grim at all, he's a regular Rainbow Bright (Hyperbole for the sake of levity).

There's a difference between thinking this Superman is "grim", and claiming this as an undisputable truth that makes you rage because "fanboys" don't see it. You might understand how some of these 'fanboys' don't take it too well.

[The Batman]

If you stop to think this through then by your definition than no hero can be grim because they all fight to make things better. But if you look at nuances (which I have from the beginning) if someone thinks that something is so messed up that he has to change the world himself than that is a kind of grimness that goes beyond the old superman who figured humanity would be just fine if left alone by outside forces such as Lex Luthor.

No, you make superheroes grim by showing them as more self-involved than selfless, more interested in working out their own personal demons by way of costumes and fighting than they are in helping people, or set against a world that is so broken and hopeless that their desire to make things better is demonstrably futile and doomed to failure. You make them grim by showing them as more interested in punishing the guilty or getting revenge than they are in improving the world or helping people. Morrison's Superman stories, however, haven't done any of those things.

The problem with your definition of grim, aside from it's tendency to ignore context and tone and the standard definition of grim that most all the rest of the world uses, is that it makes most every superhero grim because they see something in the world which requires action. The old Superman didn't figure that humanity would be just fine or he'd have never put on the costume in the first place. By your own reasoning, he's a grim character and he's always been a grim character. Thing is, those post-crisis stories where Luthor was a constant Metropolis mogul untouchable by the law because the system was too broken or corrupt to work properly probably fit closer to the definition of grim than stories where Superman is actually able to effect change for the better.

[The Batman]

Well, according to your definition being rigid is grim. If we are going into the abyss of subjectivity here with what you think than I am free to think what I want as well without a million people telling me that Superman isn't grim at all, he's a regular Rainbow Bright (Hyperbole for the sake of levity).

Think what you like, but when you post it onto a public forum meant for discussion, it's not oppression if other people point out where your thought processes aren't necessarily supported by what's actually happening in the books.

[NotSuper]

Personally, I love that Superman is willing to smack Lex up a bit now. It's EXACTLY what he would've done in the Golden Age--this Superman doesn't let you get away with even ONE murder, no matter what the bought off authorities think.