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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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...

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.)

"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?

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.

Exactly.

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

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