Comic Book Resources

Note that, in JMS's work, MJ has been a struggling actress. (Y'all surely can't count Lobsterman as a big success for her career, can you?)

I'm not sure that the Superman I grew up with (Crisis to Infinite Crisis) was all that wistful about not being a human. I'd say that the Byrne/Wolfman/Stern/Jurgens/Simonson(I'm not so well read on the Super-titles after that, until the recent stellar Rucka run) Superman absolutely associated himself with humanity. He spent the first 16-18 years of his life knowing he was human and nothing else. Oh, he might have had the alienation of being adopted, but that's hardly the same, especially with a family like the Kents.

I think taking Superboy(let alone Superbaby) out of the mythos means that you end up with a Clark who is Clark and not Kal or Superman, and the fact that he's not human becomes a miniscule part of his persona.

He seems a hell of a lot more human than post-Crisis Batman if you ask me. Now there's someone who doesn't consider himself like the rest of us.

Two things I disagree with:

Not necessarily American, despite “truth, justice and the American Way”

So wrong, so so wrong. I'd say being American is a huge part of Superman mythos, even bigger than Captain America. It's not just an immigrant story, it's specifically an AMERICAN immigrant story. Immigrant stories are different in every country, but the assimilated immigrant done good is so identified with the immigrant experience in America that it's practically it's own genre here. Superman has always been an allegory for the American government.

Second, I disagree about Action #775, I thought it was a horrible, horrible Superman story.

I agree that Spider-Man is about struggling. One story I'm surprised is not cited more as an essential Spider-man story is a Marvel Fanfare issue in the '80s by Wheatley and Hempel where everything is going great for Peter, no worries...and he's going out of his mind. He goes out as Spidey, stops some crime, a policeman comes up, he thinks "great, he's going to try to arrest me, or hassle me" or something along those lines, and the cop is saying "you okay, Spidey?" So he goes home, tries to figure out what to do...and a smile crosses his face. He calls up J. Jonah Jameson at home, says he just wants to talk, JJJ starts yelling and threatening him. The last panel is Peter with the phone an arm length away...and a big smile on his face.

I like the humble aspect of Superman, but it does seem to be frowned upon by "hip" readers because it's not badass enough. I remember Grant Morrison's first arc on JLA, where the JLA defeated the Hyperclan/white Martians, and Superman was being interviewed by some reporter. The reporter asked him why he was so selfless in defending humanity, or something like that, and Superman said something like, "Because I want to be a good example, and I owe it to them" or something similar. Damn, I'm really having trouble remembering it. It's been several years since I've read the story. Anyway, it really showed that Morrison understood that humble aspect of Superman's character. Of course, I also remember reading a review of the story in Wizard, and they said that line was really lame, and Superman was a boring Boy Scout. So yeah, that's a good part of Superman's character, and it's what makes him not kewl enough for the kids.

Thank you for saying everything that needed to be said about how they've gone wrong with the Spider-mythos. I totally agree.

As for Superman, yeah, T, he's an American immigrant story, but I'd rather Superman not represent America. One would hope we can build to something brighter; Superman is a citizen of the world. Or as Grant Morrison put it, the S-shield is the flag of a one-man country trying to do the right thing.

So, looking at Batman. I tried to put these roughly in order of importance.

He must maintain an emphasis on intelligence, planning and observation.
He must maintain his strong willpower along with a certain brutal/callous/cold outlook on life. He can have softer emotions, but only so long as he is willing to sacrifice them to the greater good.
You can do without the fabulous wealth and him beng a playboy, so long as he retains some sort of personality conflict with Wayne. Whether Wayne is shown as a vacuous playboy, a philanthropic businessman or other role, he is showing other sides, even positive sides, that he can never touch as Batman.
He must struggle to maintain his secrecy (which goes beyond just his identity). To be the fearsome figure that he is, he must remain somewhat unknown even to his closest associates.
He doesn't need to be the best martial artist, but he does need to be very good.

stuff that is very important, but not necessary. Robin. This connection to another person primarily serves to show the differences between Batman and others. It is a contrasting technique that works well, but is not essential.
Victory. Batman does not need to win every time, but he needs to learn from his non-emotional mistakes. (He never learns from the emotional mistakes he makes.) This serves again to highlight his intelligence by devising ways to overcome obstacles or individuals that were previously too much for his raw abilities.
Knowledge of Gotham. Often his knowledge of the criminal and physical infrastructure of Gotham is shown. But this is not essential.

And for Ghost Rider. He needs to have a flaming skull. He just doesn't ride that much. Everything else including powers, origins, focus, purpose, and identity all vary wildly.

how much can you take away from a character and still have it be recognizable as that character?

Because God knows, if there’s one thing comics fans cannot agree on, ever, it’s what version is THE baseline version.

This is the whole trouble with the Legion right now. Mark Waid, in the last couple of reboots, seems to have assumed that the Silver Age Legion is the baseline, and has done riffs on that for the two versions of the Legion he's initiated. Which is problematic, since:

a) other eras of the Legion, such as the Levitz era, the 5YL era and the DnA era have also been popular, but fans of those eras have nowhere to go, and

b) there's no way to really do a Silver Age kind of comic anymore, so Silver Age fans won't be completely satisfied

For me, the Legion baseline is this:

1. A large number of
2. teenage
3. superheroes in an
4. optimistic
5. far-distant future
6. acting heroically on a
7. galactic level, with discernible signs of a
8. heroic legacy tracing back to present-day DC heroes

The current Legion seems to be failing for people on points 4 and 6; Waid and Kitson's 31st century isn't nice enough for some readers, and many readers also don't find these Legionnaires heroic enough.

The 5YL Legion discarded points 2 and 4 while having to do some fancy stepping around point 8, but the quality of the comic (at first, anyway) was such that they got away with it anyway.

This kind of deconstruction (or, if that's a bad word, "boiling down") would make for a good weekly column here, a la CBUL and Snark Free Corner.

I command it so.

The essence of Clark Kent is that he was raised by Ma and Pa Kent on a farm in Kansas. That's as American as you can get. He is an immigrant, but he is not the child of immigrants. And they raised him to be a nice, polite boy. I've always liked that about Clark.

Peter Parker should be single, but Marvel shouldn't kill Mary Jane. That would be one dead girlfriend too many. They should have her become the next Herald of Galactus. That way she's gone, seemingly forever, and Peter can be single again, but without the "moral failure" of divorce. And they can always bring her back when they want her.
Ah, I can see it now. The Avengers, beaten and strewn about the rubble. Spider-Man, battered and bloodied, reaching out to Mary Jane as she steps onto the up-turned hand of Galactus.

"Peter, if loving you has taught me anything..."

Mary Jane Watson, herald of Galactus.

You must be joking.

"Mary Jane Watson, herald of Galactus.

You must be joking."

Mary Jane Watson-Parker is... Tiger-Star!

"As for Superman, yeah, T, he’s an American immigrant story, but I’d rather Superman not represent America. One would hope we can build to something brighter; Superman is a citizen of the world. Or as Grant Morrison put it, the S-shield is the flag of a one-man country trying to do the right thing."

And since that attitude is an American form of vanity, you can still make a case he fighting for the American way.

"This is the whole trouble with the Legion right now. Mark Waid, in the last couple of reboots, seems to have assumed that the Silver Age Legion is the baseline, and has done riffs on that for the two versions of the Legion he’s initiated. Which is problematic, since:

a) other eras of the Legion, such as the Levitz era, the 5YL era and the DnA era have also been popular, but fans of those eras have nowhere to go, and

b) there’s no way to really do a Silver Age kind of comic anymore, so Silver Age fans won’t be completely satisfied"

I agree with you, though I will say I'm still enjoying Waid's take on the LOSH. But this current reboot falls in line with DC's recent attitude that "Everything old is new again." Didio, Waid, Morrison, and others have made no secret their love for the Silver Age wackiness that was DC, and if you look at alot of their books and characters post-Identity/Infinite Crisis, they've taken an approach of "Silver Age = modern sensbilities- wackiness + current DCU."

"Silver Age = modern sensbilities- wackiness + current DCU.”

Oops, got my punctuation in teh wrong place. It was supposed to read:

Silver Age + modern sensbilities - wackiness = current DCU.”

And since that attitude is an American form of vanity, you can still make a case he fighting for the American way.

Exactly.

I'd break it down even further.

Superman doesn't need to be humble.

The earliest Superman wasn't. And that to me was THE Superman.

I LIKE Superman-as-immigrant-myth and it's been used to great, great effect. But we don't need it. Non-alienated Superman has worked fine in the past as well.

Costume? There should be one. I wouldn't consider Smallville a SuperMAN story.

T'my mind if you get the two basic symbolic elements of Superman, you have it.

A: Superman is GOOD.

B: Superman is an EVERYMAN, who hides his special abilities. ('An I don't really think POWERS are needed, though they've existed in every version. You could do Superman as James Bond and it'd work OK.)

But those two things are all you really need.

Spider-man, however, I am much, much, more picky about. And I agree that Spider-man isn't quite right in his current version.

But I'd also toss in the thirty-five or so years BEFORE that.

Spider-man needs to struggle, Great power, great responsibility, motivated by tragedy...etc.

BUT: Spider-man is also a COMING OF AGE story. Once Spider-man stops being about the transition between youth and adult-hood, it isn't pure Spider-man.

Obviously, some very good work has been done without this element. But the iconic, archetypal Spider-man NEEDS it.

"Reason from THAT place and yeah, Avengers Tower and the Stark job and the armor and the national ID disclosure and all those things look as dumb as they should — but the marriage, and for that matter Peter’s finally telling Aunt May — those things are okay. They don’t conflict with the basic idea of Peter vs. Spidey = tough personal life."

Now, I might be going out on a limb here -- speaking as one who *doesn't* think that those plot turns are stupid, so turn on the firehoses and nerd-shout me down boys -- but how does the 'give him what he wants, then have him throw it away on principle' not fit the basic idea of 'Peter vs. Spidey = tough personal life'?

Isn't Avengers Tower/Stark, etc., just a Faustian element? "Oh, great, I finally get the life that I've wanted, the job that I've wanted, the father figure that I've wanted...but, wait, I have to do what? Naw, outta here..."

So, now he knows that the cost is his principles.

Am I taking the crazy pills, or does that seem out-of-line to everyone else?

No, those are my thoughts exactly. We got to see Spider-man make it to the big leagues, we got to see a big change in his life and how he and his family affected it. It was a really interesting story and, I think, one that had yet to be answered.

We all knew it wouldn't work from day one, but it was really fun watching him find out it wouldn't work.

Yeah, if he was an Avenger for the next 20 years, we would consider that day the day he changed forever, but as of now, its just an interesting adventure and I think it gave us a couple of interesting stories.
(really, who thought Spider-man was going to be an Avenger for 20 years? My guess is only the same people that thought the Iron-Spider costume was going to last for years.)

To me (and I guess all generations since), MJ is a pretty darn critical part of Spiderman/Peter Parker.
He was dating/married to her for as long as I've been reading comics - possibly as long as I've been alive (since 1983).
To me Gwen is like Bruce Waynes parents - somthing that happened in his past and formed his character, while MJ is who he HAD to end up with to become who is.
Every time I hear talk of killing MJ off, I think it's the worst idea I've ever heard, and doubt I'd ever read a Spiderman book again - nerdy, I know, but I'd have no intrest in seeing the character done that way.
(It may be nostaligc for Joe Q and the writers at Marvel to see Peter single again, but for over a decade of readers, and those who only know him from the films, MJ is his Lois Lane. A Lois Lane I have no intrest in seeing engaged to someone else while carrying his child mind you).

MarkAndrew: "Spider-man is also a COMING OF AGE story. Once Spider-man stops being about the transition between youth and adult-hood, it isn’t pure Spider-man."

This isn't a very big problem at all considering the way people today are aging slower in a more emotional/psychological/whatever way. Middle-age, for example, isn't 40 anymore. It's more like 60. Being a 30-year-old today is more like being a 20-year-old decades ago.

Great article, BTW, Greg!

Anyhoo...

this is a fantastic article!

I think about this alot, I try to boil each character down to one basic element.

I agree with the poster who said Spider-man is a coming of age story. That's absolutely spot on.

The key principle with Superman is that he CHOOSES to be a hero. There is no key event in his past or current life that compells him to fight crime or punish the guilty or what have you, he just does it cos it seems right. And that's actually kind of unusual for super heroes.

I can never settle on whether Batman is the guy who tries to conrol the universe, and can't except that there are some things he will never be able to conrol, and can never be happy because of that OR if it's just an infinite retelling of the old "if at first you don't succeed story"... probably both!

sorry that should say "accept" not "except"

Now, I might be going out on a limb here — speaking as one who *doesn’t* think that those plot turns are stupid, so turn on the firehoses and nerd-shout me down boys — but how does the ‘give him what he wants, then have him throw it away on principle’ not fit the basic idea of ‘Peter vs. Spidey = tough personal life’?

Isn’t Avengers Tower/Stark, etc., just a Faustian element? “Oh, great, I finally get the life that I’ve wanted, the job that I’ve wanted, the father figure that I’ve wanted…but, wait, I have to do what? Naw, outta here…”

So, now he knows that the cost is his principles.

Am I taking the crazy pills, or does that seem out-of-line to everyone else?

Actually, no, this came up the last time I made this point... way back when when we were new to the CBR neighborhood.

Let me amplify that particular point a little bit. What you bring up isn't the problem... and I confess I pretty much gave up on Civil War and anything related to it around the time of fake Thor/Peter's prison visit, which is why I added the caveat about the story not being done yet.

The problem is bending everyone into impossible shapes to TELL that story, and then there are consequences and hidden costs to telling the story THAT WAY. Once Spider-Man goes public with his ID you can't back off from that, short of some reality-bending retcon. Likewise giving him Avenger status -- he's ONE of them, that assumes the card and clearances and so on. Especially working for Stark. Even temporary, that's a fundamental change. Etc., etc. Changes that work for ONE story -- Spider-Man goes legit and finds he can't (that part of the arc I have been TOTALLY on board with) but because of the execution, it leaves a huge mess to clean up.

I would much rather have seen the temptation-and-ultimate-rejection of the Stark/Avenger thing play out simply as a Spider-Man story instead of part of a huge mega-event that will trash Peter's life for years. Last time we saw this kind of damage control being necessary afterwards was the Clone Saga.

It all goes to how you read comics. Personally I don't care that much for a Spider-Man that feels written specifically for me, with all the long long arcs and tie-in continuity shout-outs and having the whole thing woven throughout the tapestry of the Marvel Universe. That's aimed at a guy who's been reading the book off and on for forty years and who has been known to hang in a whole extra year's worth of books to see a story arc finish even if he didn't care that much for it. I like my superheroes more self-contained. I'd rather see a Spidey that's more accessible for everyone: shorter arcs, basic premise, and lighter in tone. With the qualities I outlined in the column above.

for all seasons, all-star superman and the donner action comics are the only superman i've ever read that i really thought was good. good not as in a passive 'yeah, that's good', rather a 'those books are GOOD'

death of superman for example? much-hyped. also crap. no story just: unstoppable villain, dead superman.

i agree that spider-man isn't spider-man right now, i get a feeling raimi's spider-man is the last real spidey we'll see untin the campbell/loeb stuff

Greg:

I think in general you like your superheroes more self-contained, with stories and characters more accessible for everyone: shorter arcs, basic premise, and lighter in tone. The character qualities may vary.

You're not alone in that, but it is something of a generational thing. Anyone thirty or under doesn't necessarily get it because comics really got away from that sort of function around that time (25-30 years ago).

Of course, I don't believe it is a matter of generational tastes. I think it's a matter of younger generations really not having been given enough of that format of storytelling to have any appreciation for it.

T. said...

So wrong, so so wrong. I’d say being American is a huge part of Superman mythos, even bigger than Captain America. It’s not just an immigrant story, it’s specifically an AMERICAN immigrant story. Immigrant stories are different in every country, but the assimilated immigrant done good is so identified with the immigrant experience in America that it’s practically it’s own genre here. Superman has always been an allegory for the American government.

See, I couldn't disagree more with this. I think there's a powerful, iconic, Norm Rockwell-ish feeling about Superman being raised in the American heartland, but I don't think it's essential to the character, and it seems a little arrogant for me -- as an American -- to make that judgment.

Really, the core of the Superman story is that he's found and raised by good people and instilled with good values. It works damn well in America, no question, but I see no reason that it couldn't work just as well in the UK, Chile, Iran, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Japan, or anywhere else you damn well please. Only a country in complete and total chaos -- some place like the Congo or Sudan -- would pose problems, and that's less because of anything more inherent to Superman and more because the origin story would just be hard to do in that scenario.

Superman would definitely be different if he were raised in China or something, but I see no reason he still couldn't be, fundamentally, Superman. Hell, Metropolis could just as easily be Sao Paulo or Tokyo.

This is a pretty fun little exercise, and I'm with the earlier fellow who says it'd make for a good column. I find it's particularly hard (and interesting) for more malleable characters -- Daredevil, for instance, or Wonder Woman, who's very iconic but for whom a definitive interpretation has never quite solidified, in my opinion.

Peter Parker should be single, but Marvel shouldn't kill Mary Jane. That would be one dead girlfriend too many. They should have her become the next Herald of Galactus.

Well, hey, if it worked for Aunt May, it would work for MJ.

But really, I don't think Peter Parker should be single. He CAN be, sure, but he doesn't NEED to be. To me, the essence of Spider-Man has always been that getting superpowers didn't make his life any better - and that can easily extend to the rest of his life. Him being a constant loner is less important to me than the theme that getting exactly what you want doesn't make your life perfect.

Do more of these columns, Greg!

"Last time we saw this kind of damage control being necessary afterwards was the Clone Saga"

And it took until JMS for spidey to get any heat back on his books.
for all this shit about The Other and Civil War, if it wasn't for the guy writing him, you probably wouldn't be reading Spiderman right now.

As for bending and twisting to tell a story, that's just the Mark Millar style.
I think I've only enjoyed his books when I don't care much for the character that stars in it - such as his Wolverine Enemy Of The State arc, which was just great fun to me.
Where as his Spiderman series felt really off to me (and also a big build up to not much).
That said, if he stays on a book a while, you can live easier with the bending and twisting - Ultimate X-men became much more enjoyable for me during the 2nd arc, once I'd gotten past the akwardness of the changes in the characters (well that and the first arc wasn't the best arc ever in the world).

"It works damn well in America, no question, but I see no reason that it couldn’t work just as well in the UK, Chile, Iran, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Japan, or anywhere else you damn well please. "

In Australia he'd be too busy getting drunk.

That said, I don't think Superman is the immigrant story, I think it's the immigrant dream - everyone loves him straight off the bat, I've never heard of that much acceptance from first contact between two cultures.
If Spiderman was an alien, or Superman unpopular, I could see it as the immigrant story more so - everyone despises him no matter what he does, not realising that once he takes off his mask/costume, he's the same as them.

That said, I don’t think Superman is the immigrant story, I think it’s the immigrant dream - everyone loves him straight off the bat, I’ve never heard of that much acceptance from first contact between two cultures.
If Spiderman was an alien, or Superman unpopular, I could see it as the immigrant story more so - everyone despises him no matter what he does, not realising that once he takes off his mask/costume, he’s the same as them.

What a pessimistic view of America! Considering the amount of immigrants that come to our shore, I think America, more than most other countries on the globe, is more welcoming to immigrants than any other with the possible exception of England. I don't think the typical American attitude toward immigrants is to "despise them no matter what they do." Even when there is some initial hostility at first, which is normal in any country where there is a significant new influx of immigrants, we offer the opportunity to assimilate and move up, even if it takes a few generations. When was the last time you've seen an Irish or Italian-related slum or riot? Are Eastern European Jewish immigrants and their descendants still living in tenement slums? Aren't Mexican immigrants now making more money than they ever had in their home country, to the point where they send millions of dollars back to Mexico in the form of remittances.

As a child of immigrants, let me tell you that the American dream is real and it is not an anomaly. What my parents, aunts and uncles all found here and made of themselves they wouold have never been able to do back in Haiti.

I'm sorry but it just irks me to see someone characterize the typical American attitude toward immigration as being one of despising them no matter what, especially given how other countries treat their immigrants.

See, I couldn’t disagree more with this. I think there’s a powerful, iconic, Norm Rockwell-ish feeling about Superman being raised in the American heartland, but I don’t think it’s essential to the character, and it seems a little arrogant for me — as an American — to make that judgment.

I've never understood this need to distance Superman from America and turn him into some vague global ideal. That's not the basis of the character, no matter how vogue it is among current intellectual circles to reflexively shoot down any American patriotism as naive jingoism. Superman was parading American flags from nearly the beginning. His catchphrase includes "The American Way." He grew up in the Heartland. He fought on the side of American in WWII. He's met with American presidents repeatedly. He's been an allegory for the American government in every decade: In the 30s and 40s he was a lot less powerful and was a tool of New Deal socialism, just like the American government. In the 50s and early 60s, he became almost untouchablly powerful and promoted unbridled optimism, much like the American government and people at the time, especially in Eisenhower's time. In the late 60s and the 70s, when cynicism and progressiveness set into the American mindset and the patriotism was held up as being naive and outdated, suddenly we had stories about whether Superman's optimism was naive and outdated. The government was being held up as being too powerful to be trusted and not doing all it could do to help people, and suddenly we had stories about whether Superman was too powerful to be trusted to his own decides and whether or not he was doing all he could do to help people.

Think about how liberals viewed Reagan's America in the 80s and then look how Superman is depicted in Dark Knight Returns. You can say what you want, but the proof is there: the public perception of Superman's abilities and duties almost always correspond to the public's views of the American government.

The problem is that since today's generation of comic writers and readers are so hopelessly jaded about America's role in the world and patriotism, the only way they can view Superman positively is to rewrite him as something separate and unrelated to America. He's now someone that just happens to live in America, but supposedly could easily have lived or come into existence anywhere else in the world. His adopted nationality is almost an irrelevant detail now, supposedly as irrelevant as his blood type or underwear brand.

If that's what today's generation of progressive readers have to do to reconcile their need to love Superman with their need to disdain of America, go for it. But don't lie to yourselves and say that he's some kind of nationality-free globalist. He was created to be distinctly American.

He may have been created as distinctly American, but he was also created as a bit of a bully and able to leap only 1/8th of a mile at a time. Creations evolve and gradually come to occupy whatever parameters they do.

I won't argue that Superman has a distinctly American flavor and has at many points in his history paralleled the direction of America itself -- although one could certainly dispute whether that's a purposeful, instrinsic part of the character or the natural result of being written by, well, Americans. Either way, though, I'm simply going to have to agree to disagree that Supermans nationality is completely necessary to do the character justice. Ultimately, Superman is about goodness, and the United States doesn't have a monopoly on that.

I'd also quibble with this notion that repurposing Superman as a more global figure, less dependent on country of origin, has anything to do with paranoia and fear of jingoism. Maybe people are seeing him as more of a global citizen because they need to, because in the modern world it makes more sense. The world is much, much smaller today than it was when Superman was introduced. Mass communications, international travel and intercontinental trade are parts of nearly every person's reality. People are much more likely to feel "plugged in" to the concerns of humanity as a whole, and much more likely to feel solidarity with folks all over the globe.

Pure and simple, people think more globally than they used to, and the changing face of Superman makes a lot of sense in that respect. After all, he can be at any place in the world in a few minutes. Borders are meaningless to him. Depending on who's writing Action Comics that month, he can often hear and see halfway around the world. So, really, he ought to be a citizen of the world in certain respects. This was something I thought Mark Waid touched on really, really well in Birthright.

He may have been created as distinctly American, but he was also created as a bit of a bully and able to leap only 1/8th of a mile at a time. Creations evolve and gradually come to occupy whatever parameters they do.

He was created as a bit cocky and alot less powerful, just like America was pretty cocky and alot less powerful. As America became a huger and huger superpower, Superman became a planet-mover. That's my point. I never said Superman didn't change, just that all his changes directly correspond to America's changes. Look at any decade's view of America and it's place in the world and it directly corresponds to how Superman is viewed in that decade. The Superman story is an allegory for America.

I’d also quibble with this notion that repurposing Superman as a more global figure, less dependent on country of origin, has anything to do with paranoia and fear of jingoism. Maybe people are seeing him as more of a global citizen because they need to, because in the modern world it makes more sense. The world is much, much smaller today than it was when Superman was introduced. Mass communications, international travel and intercontinental trade are parts of nearly every person’s reality. People are much more likely to feel “plugged in” to the concerns of humanity as a whole, and much more likely to feel solidarity with folks all over the globe.

Sure Superman should be in touch with what's going on with the world, but the questions that arise from Superman's role in the world directly correspond to America's role in the world? If a writer thinks America's role internationally should be to intervene in places like Darfur and Bosnia, that's what they'll have Superman doing. If a writer is against the war in Iraq and thinks America should not exercise its power there, they'll pull a Joe Kelly and use Superman to speak out against that war. So he's not a global citizen, he's America trying to find its place in the world stage.

Pure and simple, people think more globally than they used to, and the changing face of Superman makes a lot of sense in that respect. After all, he can be at any place in the world in a few minutes. Borders are meaningless to him. Depending on who’s writing Action Comics that month, he can often hear and see halfway around the world. So, really, he ought to be a citizen of the world in certain respects. This was something I thought Mark Waid touched on really, really well in Birthright.

Yes people think more globally than ever, but the way an Arab views his place in the world differs than the way a Chinese person does, which differs from how an Eastern European does and so forth. Superman should, and does, think more globally than he used to, but he specifically views his place in the world from an American viewpoint. To make him view himself as a country-neutral citizen of the world is DC's prerogative, but it totally goes against the essense and tradition of the character, no matter how people try to rationalize it differently. And you mention that he can hear and see halfway around the world. Well which country is powerful enough and most equipped to do the same? America. Which country is held to a higher moral standard than most others? (NO one is demanding China end suffering in Darfur) Which country do people most demand to use its vast power and resources for good? (Oil-rich Saudi Arabia has tons of money, but Bono doesn't spend as much time petitioning them to end AIDs in Africa as he does to the US)

The only retort I ever get to my viewpoint on this is "Well, it shouldn't be that way." Well regardless of how it should be, that doesn't change how it actually is and always has traditionally been: Superman represents America,and it's part of his essential character.