Back to the Beginning for the Man of Steel

Starting with the release of Justice League #1 on August 31st, DC Comics has begun a line-wide reboot: all previous titles cancelled, and 52 new series beginning at issue #1. This is certainly a big change up for The Man of Tomorrow, whose Action and Superman titles were numbering in the 900s and 700s, respectively. Yesterday saw the release of a new Action Comics #1, the relaunch of the series that began the superhero explosion of the late 30s with the introduction of Superman.

The Superman we originally saw in Action Comics #1 in 1938 was very different from the Superman known and loved worldwide today. If you never have, I'd encourage you to follow that link and read the first Superman story ever, only twelve pages long, but worth roughly a million dollars today. The Superman of 1938 couldn't fly, was raised in an orphanage, and showed little regard for law and order. Ignoring the introductory origin page, which heralds Superman as "Champion of the oppressed, the physical marvel who had sworn to devote his existence to helping those in need," it takes a page and a half before we can even tell if Superman is the hero, with him committing the crimes of kidnapping, assault, and breaking and entering (albeit in order to save an innocent woman from execution)!

It's hard to imagine the modern Superman assaulting a sleeping Governor in his mansion, even to save a woman's life. But, for this reinterpretation of Superman for a new generation, superstar comic book writer Grant Morrison has spoken of his intention of bringing the character back to his roots as a crusading champion of the oppressed, more concerned with justice and equality than with law and order. And, with Action Comics #1, Morrison delivers.

Reminiscent of the original Action Comics #1, Morrison drops us into the middle of a story already in progress. We open on business men in suits celebrating a deal with a drink. Superman burst onto the scene, calls them rats with money and guns, and tells them he's their worst nightmare. The police are in hot pursuit of the Man of Steel, and when they arrive on the scene, he's dangling a man over a precipice, refusing to put him down until he makes a full confession to "someone who still believes the law works the same for the rich and the poor alike. Because that ain't Superman." Already, in the first five pages of this issue, Morrison has introduced us to a Superman who looks a lot more like Christopher Nolan's Batman with his guttural growls and vigilante justice than he does like Christopher Reeve's Superman who doles out advice with a gentle tone and a smile.

Superman then leaps off the building, villain in tow, and carries them both down to earth, where the concrete cracks, and the man confesses to the use of illegal labor, no safety standards, the bribing of city officials, and lying to everyone. Superman then proclaims to his witnesses, "You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right or expect a visit from me." Then, after taunting the police, he dashes off into the night.

Then, we're reintroduced to two characters Superman fans know well: General Sam Lane, father of Lois Lane, and Lex Luthor, arch-nemesis of Superman. We find out that Superman appeared in Metropolis six months ago, and he (although they refer to Superman as an "it," common for the xenophobia typical of both characters' portrayal through recent years) has been getting progressively faster and stronger. Luthor has been hired by the Army as a consultant to help capture Superman, showing his typical disdain for the Man of Steel and raging ego.

Luthor's foot soldiers chase Superman into a tenement slum scheduled for demolition but not yet entirely uninhabited, naming it the "ideal inescapable trap." Superman takes blow after blow protecting these poor people from the soldiers after him, and, after the tanks knock the wind out of him, they step forward to protect Superman, saying "Enough! This guy just saved our lives! My kids! What the hell is wrong with you people?!" They protect Superman as he flees, but not before he tells them if they need him, he'll be around.

Escaping from his pursuers, Superman changes back into Clark Kent on the roof of his own run-down tenement building, where we're treated to a wonderfully humanizing scene between Clark and his landlady, as well as finding out that Superman himself lacks anything resembling financial security. Clark then calls his best friend Jimmy Olsen (sporting a truly horrible bowl cut) who's out on assignment with Lois Lane. We find out more back story here, as Lois tells us that Clark Kent works for the Daily Planet's rival newspaper (not named, but presumably the Daily Star). They chase a criminal enforcer (who works for the same man Superman accosted earlier) onto what becomes a runaway train. Superman stops the train and saves the day, but at the cost of his freedom, with issue #2 promising "Superman in Chains."

There's a lot to like about this issue. While I think the artwork could have been better, and the character designs (especially clothing and Jimmy's hair cut) left something to be desired, I think this issue is a great introduction to Superman for the new millennium. Everything about this issue, from his refusal to work within the bounds of a corrupt legal system to his blue jeans and t-shirt costume, shows us that Superman is here to stand up for the rights of the people who aren't strong enough to stand up for themselves.

Superman is not here to fight for law and order; he's here to be a champion for the oppressed, even if that means winding up on the wrong side of the law. Sure, he's not the beacon of hope and humility that I know and love, but I'm genuinely excited to read more about these earlier adventures of Superman as he learns what it means to be a hero, which isn't something I've been able to say about the ongoing Superman titles in a while. While I don't necessarily think Justice League #1 was all it could (or should) have been, I think that Action Comics #1 is a book that does a phenomenal job of reintroducing you to a classic character, giving you enough to be intrigued, but still leaving you wanting more.

The Prodigal Blogger Returns

It's been awhile. Partially because of my daily responsibilities on the rule blog, partially because of a busy schedule, but mostly just because I couldn't think of anything interesting to write about. That is until now.

For those of you who know me, you know that I'm an avid fan of comic books. And I think about them a lot. And, as I sit here at my computer instead of in bed next to my lovely wife, it is because I have just perceived what I see to be a flawed understanding of the entire comic book medium. This has nothing particular to do with the source material per-say, but is rather a realization of a misunderstanding as to the closest analogy comic books have with other media.

Most people assume that comic books are just like books, but with more pictures. For some forms of comic books, such as graphic novels*, this would certainly be true, but for monthly based issues of comic books, it seems less clear. Others would say that comic books are like movies that don't move. This might also be true, but it falls under the same difficulty as the argument for books.

Movies and books, although commonly having sequels, are, for the most part, stand-alone works. When one watches a movie or reads a book, one is presented with a story that has a definitive beginning, middle, and end. Even books or movies that have sequels usually have some sort of story progression in mind. Comic books do not function this way.

When writers of a comic book begin the project, they have no idea how long it is going to last. A new comic book could last for 70 years, or it could last for 70 days. Often times comic books continue far beyond the plot; that is to say, that they continue even after they've run out of ideas. Sometimes comic books are cancelled even with a loyal burgeoning fan base and promising story-telling. What other medium does this sound like?

Oh, that's right. Television. Much like television, comic books are subject to the whims of periodic survival. If someone is in the middle of a movie with a confusing plot, they are more likely to give the movie time to develop and elucidate, since it will only be a few hours and they have already invested time and money into beginning to watch. Comic books and television, however, are judged not as a whole endeavor but by the bits and pieces we see on a regular basis. Until the recent advent of seasons on DVD, it wasn't even possible to watch a whole TV series beginning to end in one, fluid perception.

Much the same with comic books. Most either suffer from not explaining enough what's been happening or instead waste half of the issue catching the reader up on the story. And, much like TV, comics are not given as much time to develop story without readers losing interest. We are often left, then, with two equally bad kinds of story telling: what I will call "Gilligan's Island" comic books and "Lost" comic books.

With "Gilligan's Island" comic books, there is little opportunity to lose sense of the story. Although there are overarching themes (such as being stranded on an island, or Batman fights crime), issues have little interconnection of story-telling. Instead, they tend to function as isolated units that are hampered by all the constraints of single-issue storytelling.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, "Lost" comic books certainly have a central plot. The only problem is, by the time the story ends things have become so convoluted that you're not always sure what exactly it is you're reading about anymore. When little changes in the plot between issues 1-19, and then the reader is suddenly expected to remember (without help from the writer) a minor detail of issue 4 that is suddenly vitally important, this can often become frustrating.

So next time you watch Adam West dance the batusi, remember how hard comic book (and television) writers have it.

*I use the term "comic book" generally to apply to pictures with words interpreting them. I know some do not consider graphic novels to be comic books, but for the sake of argument, just go with me.

"The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness."

Adulthood

Well, I've been graduated for a week and a half. I have a job, I have my own apartment, and I have bills to pay. And yet, I still don't feel like an adult. I'm not really sure when that feeling comes. Is it something I'll just wake up one day and have? Will I never feel like an adult? Will it come when I get married? Have kids?

And, then there's the question of whether or not a distinction ought to be drawn between being an adult and being responsible. If so, I don't know if really know many adults. If not, then is responsibility an essential part of adulthood? I would like to think so, but I'm not really sure. In the interest of quantification of data, here is a list of things that count for and against my alleged adulthood.

For:

1. I have two jobs.

2. I have an apartment.

3. I pay bills.

4. I fulfill domestic responsibilities (for the most part).

Against:

1. I own hundreds of comic books.

2. I own several action figures.

3. My parents still pay some of my bills.

4. I don't have health insurance.

Perhaps the jury is still out on whether or not I qualify as an adulthood.

“The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness.”

Pop Philosophy vis-à-vis Watchmen

I wanted to put this youtube video in as my picture for this post, but I couldn't figure out how, so enjoy it here.

So, after seeing Watchmen for the second time, I thought I might follow up my one-word review of the movie with some philosophical assessment of the characters which comprise this gripping and psychologically conflicting movie. The way I see it, there are three main schools of ethical philosophical thought espoused by the costumed heroes that are the focal points of the Watchmen story: utilitarianism, moral absolutism, and nihilism. WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS.

The character at the forefront of the utilitarian "camp", for a lack of a better word, in this story is the retired hero turned media mogul Ozymandias. Ozzy sees a problem with the basic nature of humanity, one which he shares in common with The Comedian: people are essentially savage beings, and sooner or later without outside intervention we are going to destroy each other. Ozymandias therefore creates the ultimate utilitarian problem: the entire world is about to destroy itself, so, in order to save the lives of billions, he kills millions. Then, the other heroes who have discovered his plot (Silk Spectre II, Nite Owl II, Rorschach, and Dr. Manhattan) have to decide whether they do the so-called "right" thing and make Ozymandias pay for the murder of millions, or simply let him get away without in order to help ensure his new global peace. So, as in the philosophical ethic of utilitarianism, "the good" is seen not as that which we might find most morally pleasing, but that which ultimately is best for the greatest percentage of people, forcing us to ask ourselves if we could live with the deaths of millions if it were for the sake of world peace.

Then, in contrast to the utilitarianism of Ozymandias, we have the moral absolutism of Rorschach. Rorschach, psychologically disturbed though he might be, sees ethics in absolute categories of right and wrong, good and evil, black and white. To quote Rorschach, "Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon." Matters of expediancy don't factor into his moral decisions, and there is no letting lesser evils go unpunished in order to bring in those who commit greater evils. Criminals are evil; therefore, criminals die. It's just as simple as that. And yet, within Rorschach increasing mental instability and paranoia, the reason the character is so compelling is that there is a little Rorschach in all of us. Whenever we see great injustices, or evil men hurting women and children, or people taking advantage of the weak and defenseless, there is a part of us that says "to hell with the system; this person should be dead." As human beings, we want justice, occasionally in extreme and violent ways.

Finally, we have the nihilists of the Watchmen universe: The Comedian & Dr. Manhattan. The interesting thing about these two is that they react to their belief that life is ultimately meaningless in entirely different ways. The Comedian sees all of human existence as one big joke. And, as a result, he becomes a parody of the darkness he sees in the heart of humanity. He lives a life seemingly composed of equal parts hedonism and pragmatism. He does what he wants, when he wants to do it as long as the personal risk is minimal and he can gain from the results. Dr. Manhattan, on the other hand, sees life to be a "highly overrated phenomenon", and as a result becomes increasingly detached from and unconcerned for human beings, to the point of leaving the planet to go live on Mars. Seeing his past, present, and future as one singular quantum moment, Dr. Manhattan becomes increasingly bored and depressed by human interaction, becoming in some cases little more than a passive observer, such as in the case of The Comedian and the Vietnamese woman who scars his face.

If you were to ask me what Watchmen was about, I'm honestly not sure I could give you an answer. The graphic novel is so indepth and has so many layers that it is difficult to sum up into a singular concept. Ultimately, I guess Watchmen is about life: the ways in which we live, we make the world a better place, and who we choose to become as we experience the world.

“The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness.”

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

I am finding it hard to express verbally (or in type) just how excited I am for the new Watchmen movie coming out this week. This story raises all kinds of interesting questions about morality, God, and human nature. I don't want to spoil anything for those of you who haven't read the comic, but if the ending is anything like it is in the book, you will leave the theater unsure of what would have been the right thing to do, and those are some of the best stories I ever read/seen. For now, I'll leave you with this logical argument:

1. Rorschach is morally committed to the proposition "murder is wrong".
2. If something is wrong, then it should be punished.
3. Rorschach has committed murder in the past.
:. Rorschach should turn himself in.

Champion of the Oppressed

If you've ever met me, and we've talked for more than a few minutes, superheroes probably came up somehow in the conversation. And, if we discussed it further, the conversation probably led (as conversations with me on superheroes invariably tend to lead) to Superman.

Now, I know that most people who like comic books are into to Marvel. That's fine. They make great comic books, and I'm all for people supporting the industry regardless of which companies titles they read. Personally, I find Marvel's superheroes to be lacking that certain something that makes them heroic. A lot of people enjoy Marvel characters because they can relate to their failures and shortcomings. That's fine. Sometimes, it's even great. But, I want something more from my heroes. If my heroes are just like me, then I don't really have any reason to look to them as examples of how I ought to live my life.

That's why I've always been a fan of Big Blue. Say what you want about him, I've heard it all: he's too powerful to be interesting, he's just a boring boyscout, he's a total loser without his superpowers, he's a crude caricature of America, etc. But, at the end of the day, I think there's a reason that Superman has been around for 70 years: because people want hope. If our heroes don't inspire us to become better than we have been, if our heroes are no better than we are, then hero worship is merely just a matter of empathy.

Lots of things have changed about Superman over the years: his relationship with Lois Lane, just how powerful he is, whether or not he can age, his supporting characters and the villains he battles, etc. The main constant in the Superman mythos is this: Superman always does what he believes to be the right thing. His rigid moral character, his indomitable will, his love for humanity: these are things that make Superman a hero, not heat vision or super strength.

Now, to maybe help you have an idea of what I'm talking about, here are some examples of why I love Superman from a couple of my favorite Superman stories. The first is Red Sun, a what if story where Superman grows up in the USSR in the 50's instead of America. The context of this soliloquy is that a satellite is falling toward Metropolis, threatening to destroy the city.

"They called me a soldier, but that just wasn't true. I was never a soldier. A soldier always follows orders. A soldier knows and hates his enemy. A soldier only fights and dies for his own people. I just fought for what was right... A cluster of support cables groaned and snapped. People screamed for someone to save them. Not my people, but I never refuse a cry for help. All the lies they spread about me. The propaganda they engineered at the height of the Cold War. None of it mattered for a while on that bright afternoon. Just for a single moment. They realized I was here to save them."

These are not Superman's people. But, at the same time, they are. Superman does not belong to a single state or principality. Superman belongs to the world, and we are all his people, regardless of our personal philosophies, skin colors, sexual orientation, or the crimes we have committed. We are all his people.

The second and third examples are from Kingdom Come, a story set in the future where the new generation of superheroes have become petty and corrupt, and our heroes come out of retirement to show them the way that heroes are supposed to behave. The first story deals with why Superman retired, and the second deals with what happens when things get out of control in the rehabilitation of the new generation.

This quote is in the context of Magog, the "hero" who replaced Superman addressing him in the middle of a nuclear explosion decimated Kansas, a result of Magog's recklessness:

Magog: "They were calling you old-fashioned when I was a teenager. World's oldest boy scout...but you wouldn't change. You wouldn't get in step. You wouldn't flex with the times. Remember? The Daily Planet asked if that's why the Joker got so many notches on his belt when he blew into our town. How many did he take out just that last time? Ninety-two men?..."

Superman: "And one woman."

Magog: "Hell. We both tore up the city looking for that bastard. I really thought you or Batman would get to him first. Even I almost missed him. Almost. I will never forget the look on your face when you saw me standing over that smoking creep. All the way to Jail, I thought, what a sap. What an old woman. Blue boy's dragging me in for having stones he doesn't. 'Times are tough. Joker'd been deserving worse than 'cuffs for years. So I took it upon myself to lay him down. I can't be judged for that.' And I was right. I was a hero. But you just wouldn't roll with it. You had to get in a last shot and piss me off. I wanted that torch passed. I wanted to cement my claim as Metropolis' new number one. I asked for a title bout between you and me, and I won by default when you flew off with your cape between your legs... I always thought you were afraid of me. A lot of people did. But that wasn't it. You were afraid that I was the man of tomorrow. You were afraid of the future I represented. Well, look around you. This is what I represent."

Superman: "You must be proud."

Magog: "Proud? PROUD? GOD DAMN YOU! Pround of being the man of tomorrow? Your fault...you bastard. The world changed...but you wouldn't. So they chose me. They chose the man who would kill over the man who wouldn't... and now they're dead."

In case you couldn't tell without the pictures, this recounts Joker killing everyone in the Daily Planet building (including Lois) and in turn being killed by Magog after he had turned himself in to the police. Superman's response? Put him on trial for murder. Murder of the man who just killed everyone Superman ever cared about. Superman lost the trial and went into self-imposed exile, incapable of dealing with a world that would condone murder, even murder of a psychopath with the blood of thousands on his hands, including Superman's friends and wife. Because that's how much Superman values the lives of people, even scum like the Joker.

The second excerpt from Kingdom Come is Superman addressing his followers after the "heroes" they are attempting to rehabilitate are refusing to cooperate and have started a riot in their gulag.

Wonder Woman: "So...your world's finally turned completely topsy-turvy. How do we handle this?"

Superman: "I...don't know."

Wonder Woman: "Then I do. We're going to confront the prisoners and give them an ultimatum. They must surrender."

Superman: "And if they refuse?"

Wonder Woman: "Then it's war."

Superman: "But you can't have a war without people dying."

At this point in the story, everyone looks at Superman as though he's lost his mind, then walks away to go and have their war. It's true that Superman's moral code doesn't always work out neatly in his stories. People have been dying all this time as a result of his refusal to take the lives of truly evil people. But, agree or not, you have to admire his refusal to compromise.

I could go on and on about Superman and superheroes in general for hours and days, but I just thought I might give a rough, somewhat preliminary explanation of why I'll always love the Man of Steel as I wander through life.

“The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness.”

Hulk Mad! Hulk Smash! Hulk Bruce Banner?

Hello readers. It has been a while, but the new year is upon us, and the dawning of the new year (coupled with my return to campus) have inspired me to blog. And, seeing how it is a new year, I thought that I would begin with a topic of importance, namely the issue of identity in the persona of Bruce Banner/The Incredible Hulk.

For those of you who don't know, the Incredible Hulk is a superhero created by Jack Kirby and Stan Lee who first appeared in Incredible Hulk #1, May of 1962. The Hulk was "born" for the lack of a better term when scientist Bruce Banner was caught in the onslaught of a nuclear blast, altering his D.N.A. and causing him to transform into a monstrous alter ego dubbed "The Hulk". Initially these transformations were merely nocturnal, leading Bruce to transform when the sun went down[1], but quickly began to instead be associated with Banner's emotional state, transformation being triggered by emotional duress, be it anger, excitement, jealousy, etc.

All of that brings us to the real question behind this blog post: are Dr. Bruce Banner and the Incredible Hulk the same person? If someone were to ask me this, my initial response would be "of course", but, upon further thought, it appears that the answer is a resounding "no". Consider the following: When Dr. Banner becomes the Hulk, he has little to no control in regards to stopping or regulating his transformations, as well as regulating his actions once he has "hulked out", to use the vernacular. The Hulk does seem to share at least some common memories with Banner, and vice versa, but they do seem to be two distinct identities.

Whether or not you regard Hulk and Bruce Banner as the same person can of course vary depending upon your definition of identity regarding mental instability, specifically psychosis and schizophrenia. But, if some commits some sort of crime while temporarily insane, we do not convict them of this crime. We will restrain and detain them, but not as punishment. Rather, we do so to protect ourselves from a repeat occurrence until such time as they can be cured.

It appears as though they are relieved from responsibility due to their inability to control themselves, implying that we regard the person who committed the crime and the person being tried as two separate individuals, even though they live in the same body. The same applies for Bruce Banner/The Incredible Hulk. In my humble opinion they are merely two separate individuals who inhabit the same body.

[1] Incredible Hulk #1, May 1962