...and really, my first reaction to hearing the thing about Superman renouncing his US citizenship was "Dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

I know some folks were thinking only Fox News fans would have an issue with it, but while I'm not phased in the least by dropping the phrase "...and the American way", renouncing his citizenship is another thing altogether. To me, it sends the message that an American cannot have the greater good of the world in mind... That to do that, one has to distance oneself from this country. That's bullshit. What's more, it strikes me as Superman distancing himself from the country that raised him because it's easier in an age where America is polarizing.

Superman can be American and still differ in opinion from those in charge of the country. That's part of being an American, and standing up and offering an example of that is valuable. But hey, if it's too inconvenient for him, then I understand. I wouldn't want him to strain himself or anything.

My first reaction was "Dear God, this must be what CSFB! feels like every moment of the day since "Spider-Man: Chapter One" came out!




Pretty much my feeling as well (though I am put off by the dropping of "the American Way" from Superman's mantra). The story tries to spin it that Superman does it because he doesn't want the world to see his actions as "instruments of US policy", but there are certainly less controversial and downright insulting ways to accomplish this without renouncing your citizenship.

Another question: if he's renouncing US citizenship does that mean Superman isn't subject to American law?




It's just stupid and silly. Why is Superman, of all people, attempting a PR stunt to improve his public standing in a world he's saved about a million times? Wouldn't he look like less of a pussy if he just told the world that being an American citizen doesn't necessarily mean you agree with everything its government does?

Obviously, Time/Warner feel that they're going to lose the court case with the Shuster/Seigel copyright claim, so they're doing everything they can to sabotage the character before DC loses the right to use him.

More seriously, WHAT THE HELL is wrong with Americans that suddenly they seem to be ashamed of their country? I mean, sure, we Brits enjoy mocking you for your colonial eccentricities, but what's this new spirit of apologetic pandering that makes you forget all the good stuff you've brought to the world. Why is it suddenly wrong to be patriotic? Why are you forcing us Brits to say nice things about you in breach of the usual traditions?

Why is it bad to belong to a country that values freedom of speech, democracy, self-determination and human rights so much that it fought terrible wars to win them and framed a great constitution to preserve them? Why is it bad to be part of a nation that's fought tyranny at substantial cost in pretty much every major conflict that's really counted in the last century? And why is it bad to be part of a nation that actually questions and re-evaluates its values and practices all the time and learns things like slavery is wrong and segregation is immoral?

And what stupid politically-correct politically-naive thinking has led to DC's Superman decision? What's wrong with defining the American way as the people who first coined that phase did, meaning democracy and the personal liberties and personal opportunity? Or is Superman not for those now?

And speaking as a comics fan, there is NO WAY that a smart savvy journalist like Clark Kent would be dumb enough to make the kind of decision his dumb writers just did. And if he tried Lois would kick his ass all the way to Smallville.

I would dispute this, but I have read the summaries for "Grounded" on Wikipedia.




I'd like to think its because we have such high expectations of ourselves as a nation that we fixate on the negative.




Nobody roots for Goliath, that's why.




I believe any thinking DC and David Goyer have done on the subject is more market driven than politically correct.





You'd like to think so. To me, this is just another example of how DC tends to wussify Superman as a character. Can you imagine Batman renouncing anything to placate a disapproving public?

1. This was a back-up story. This plot point will never be mentioned again.

2. How does Superman have US citizenship? Clark Kent, sure. But Superman? He doesn't even have a name. Unless "Kal-El" has a social security number.

3. Superman is an illegal alien anyway. Quite literally.

4. I liked it best when Grant Morrison-- I think it was him anyway-- said the S-shield was the flag of a one-man country. I mean, realistically, Superman's ties to America and constant "interference" in the affairs of other nations would cause international incidents and wars CONSTANTLY. I mean, yeah, it's comics, but still. Verisimilitude!

5. I don't really care about any of this, but as a nerd I love debate.

The discussion hasn't been whether or not its part of continuity or canon.




Superman must have US citizenship. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to renounce it.




See above.




Which is as good an argument to keep "realism" out of superhero stories as any.

A hero who is as omnipotent as Superman is boring as hell. There would be no conflict in the world. Any war, he could sweep in and single-handedly end it if this book had an iota of realism to it. Plus, he works at a newspaper company full of journalists who can't tell that this reporter looks exactly like Superman, except with glasses. Yeah, okay.

Move to the Middle East, Superman. They need your help over there, ya drama queen.

The flesh is invulnerable, but the spirit can be broken.




Yes, but doing so would just spark further wars and bloodshed. But then, you've just hit on the first act of the Superman movie I'll never write!




He also combs his hair differently! And slouches!

I think Superman's a terrific character; he's just usually written half-assed. All Star Superman got it right. Joe Casey's pacifist Superman got it right. But it's tough.

That's true - and one recurring theme I use here with very powerful characters is a realization that interference breeds dependence. If one very powerful character tries to right all the wrongs in the PV, suddenly the PV becomes completely dependent on them, and they don't get a moment of peace ever again. Or alternately, they're abused by people who they weren't able to save.

Allegations of racism and sexism would inevitably be thrown - i.e. you didn't save my son because he's black, or from a bad neighborhood, or muslim, or because he's male and you only save females, or because she was too old and you only save young women.

That said, renouncing citizenship is stupid. Being American doesn't exclusively mean I'm only American and I represent the USA for better or worse. It can also mean I just so happen to live on American soil, or I agree with the ideals set forth by the American ideal. This should anger off the entire immigrant population, they fight to be American because they believe in the ideal, and still believe in it when they're sometimes deported.

The argument that Superman is boring because he's omnipotent is weak, because all the iconic heroes are treated that way. Batman can never be outsmarted, Wolverine is the biggest badass, the Hulk's "the strongest one there is", etc. The only guy who breaks the mold is Spider-Man, and that's because he's meant to be a putz.

Really, of all the big superheroes I'd say Superman is the one who gets his head handed to him most, for the simple fact writers bend over backward to avoid the "omnipotent" stigma.

I don't see the analogy.

There's a difference between having a genius level IQ (Bats) and being an invulnerable God (Supes). What levels the playing-field for Batman, is he's a normal man with none of the powers that other heroes have. He can be hurt easily. Sometimes smarts aren't enough to save yourself from a physically damaging encounter (see Bane). He only his wits to rely on and that's what makes him so compelling. And just because he's smart in one way, doesn't mean he's mentally incapable in others (see his social interaction with women). I liken him to a contemporary Sherlock Holmes.

Hulk, while not my cup of tea, at least has the duality and pain of his uncontrollable transformations into Bruce Banner and the fact he can't control this monster inside of him. Some things the Hulk did were not always good and Bruce was as much at war with the Hulk as he was with external enemies.

Wolverine USED to be interesting, back when his healing-factor was reasonable, but now it seems it will heal anything and that makes him boring like Superman. When nothing can hurt you, all elements of suspense and danger leaves the book.

Spider-Man used to be awesome. His current book is crap. But that has more to do with the writing than the core of the character.

Superman isn't an invulnerable god. He takes his lumps plenty. From villains just as powerful as he is. Or have advanced enough tech. Or use magic. Or, you know, kryptonite. In his last movie Superman needs to be saved from certain death by a couple of mere mortals. I don't recall Batman having these kinds of problems in "The Dark Knight". Watch the finale of Justice League Unlimited, where after he gives his famous "World of Cardboard" speech while knocking Darkseid all over Metropolis, he still gets taken down by the New God and its up to Lex Luthor to save the day. And the comics have just as many examples. Superman isn't any more unstoppable than the other A-list heroes; he just gets more flak for it, mostly by people who don't actually follow the character's adventures.





I love the current run on Spidey, Green Goblin tattoos aside. Slott is writing fun stories about actual superheroing, which is rare in the market nowadays.

I've tried reading Superman and haven't enjoyed it at all. I always found the kryptonite thing to be a crutch too. ("Okay, we need an element of danger... let's use kryptonite! It will be purple colored this time!") Every time Batman or Spidey even take down a mugger there's a risk. With Supes, it seems there's only danger when there's a hidden brick of kryptonite conveniently around. Okay, so there are some others who might match Supes in the strength category, but they are always other-worldly beings like Doomsday or Dark-Seid and I can't relate to their motivations, personality or code of morality at all. That is a personal taste thing though. I've always hated cosmic entities in comics.

I also don't find his civilian ID compelling at all. I'm sorry, but Superman is like a God. If you were Supes, you would never find the need to be Clark Kent. The whole concept just feels disingenuous and odd. He's not grounded at all and heroes like Spidey came up in reaction to these omnipotent heroes like Supes who had no flaws. Plus, I'm sorry Nats and anyone else, but I'll never get over the leap in logic of Clark not being suspected as Supes at all just because he slouches and puts on glasses. Lois Lane must be a crap investigative reporter if she didn't know for years that her co-worker was the same guy who kept rescuing her every time she went building diving. It's a conceit I just can't buy.


Look, different strokes for different folks. You've explained why you like Supes. I've explained why I don't. No need to keep going back and forth. I understand people have different tastes and like you I'm pretty set in my opinion about Big Blue.

I never would've wasted my time explaining to someone why Superman is a good character. Personal opinion, as you said. My goal was to simply point out that its wrong to say Superman is a terrible hero because he's omnipotent, since he's clearly nor any more all-powerful than the other big name comic book characters.

... and pretty much takes care of all of your issues with the character. It seems pretty silly that you think all Superman stories must suck just because of the character featured within, when there have been umpteen variations on the guy throughout the decades. No character sucks; there's just bad writing.

While it's harder for Superman to have physical setbacks like Spidey or Batman ("I have to fight crime with the flu!" "Some asshole broke my spine!"), it doesn't mean he's less interesting. This is comics-- the good guys are never in any danger, they always win. It's a narrative conceit. Therefore Superman has to deal with emotional trauma, or intellectual problems, rather than just punch things. Punching things is boring.

I suppose it's all a matter of suspension of disbelief, and you sound pretty disbelieving, which is fine, I guess, but will clearly limit your enjoyment of silly genre ficton. Me, I love silly genre fiction. Your disinterest in characters like Darkseid make me sad, because New Gods is one of my favorite comics ever, and Darkseid under Kirby's pen was very human, even though he hid it under a face of granite.

And heck, I'm even sort of enjoying Spider-Man comics now, and I'm not usually a Spider-Man guy. Yeah, they played stupid, needless games with continuity to get us to this point, but all I really care about is if the stories are good. I like some of what Slott's going for, anyway; the issues drawn by Marcos Martin are bolstered by the art, and look amazing.

First off, Bill, how are you? It's been too long.

I haven't read All Star Superman. It's entirely possible that the Superman being written today is a superior interpretation to the one I read in the 90's which bored me senseless and even at age 12 seemed ridiculous.

As I told Shrike, this also boils down to a matter of personal taste. I like street level stories and generally hate cosmic stories. I have never dug the Darkseid/Galactus kinda threats, because I can't relate to them. Their motivations, powers and stature are all too epic in scope for me. To me, the most intriguing and disturbing villains are the ones who are all too human.

Don't care for new Spider-Man, but haven't really cared for him since the 90's. The occasional book I read of his (about one a year) just reinforces my opinion. It's not really a matter of continuity. It's a matter of characterization. He doesn't sound or act like the Peter Parker I read growing up. These days I'm much more into Vertigo stuff like DMZ and Y the Last Man (before it ended).

Eh, a'ight. How goes things for you?




I have rose-tinted nostalgia glasses for 90s Superman comics. The last time I was really into Superman was when he was blue and had weird energy powers.




Have you checked out Darwyn Cooke's Parker GNs? They're right up your alley. Or "Chew," from Image? That one's a little absurd, but then, you invented Disco Hitler, so.