Okay, I’m on this thing
now. I know Dean Cain’s Clark from “Lois
and Clark” did some petty things that I don’t think of as super(though I can’t
think of any specific examples), but maybe that’s part of his relatability? I
mean, wouldn’t we do some petty things against people who are jerks if we had
Superman’s powers? Most of us would go
beyond ‘petty,’ which is strange because I’ve used that word so much to
describe super-villains. They aren’t petty, they’re petty and they won’t let it
go. Oh, man, with the exception of the hairpiece thing, I’m not really sure
what I’ve got on Superman doing that kind of thing. I’m sure it was common in
The Silver Age. On the one hand, I get that Superman is a persona; he is that
guy of course, but he’s also Clark Kent, average human reporter who doesn’t
carry the weight of the world on his shoulders all of the time. Someone who
does relax, who has fun, and enjoys the life that he works so hard to preserve
for others. No, again Clark Kent is a reporter who’s clumsy and awkward. He
doesn’t exude confidence or enjoy the company of others. Again, I’m thinking is
the guy who can bench press planets and have quiet evenings with Lois Lane is
someone else entirely, someone who can do all the things I listed two sentences
ago. A guy who misses his planets and a family he’ll never see, but enjoys
baseball and his mom’s apple pie. A guy who talks to his wife about the burdens
of being a living icon while causing some occasional mischief with his god-like
powers. Again, I think of Superman as really being Kal-El, Last Son of Krypton,
Clark Kent by day, Superman…also by day.
But how it is petty when
Lex hates Superman, but not quite so petty when Kal-El puts a macho bully in
his place as Clark? It’s easy to say that what Kal does is an extension of what
Superman does (tiny justice for tiny injustices) or that since no harm is done
it’s somehow okay. There’s economic harm done and whatever people think of
bullies or hairpieces (god, I feel so stupid for discussing this one incident
ad nauseam), he’s not performing this as a massive public service, he’s doing
it because the guy messed with Clark Kent. It is personal. It is proportional
and morally unambiguous, though (this guy is presented wholly as a jerk).
Killing Superman isn’t proportional to any wrong done to Lex Luthor. While the
things that Superman does occasionally have negative consequences, they are
largely ‘good’ things that are hard to impugn (though being one of the smartest
men in the world does allow you to surmount all manner of challenges). Superman
is portrayed as sympathetic and good, while the villains are displayed
unsympathetically and as rather bad people. This gives Kal some of the latitude
to cause minor trouble the way he does…in the minds of the readers of course.
For me, I think I have to
factor in that these actions are rare, proportional, and temporary. Most days,
Kal-El’s ego is big enough to take some punishment as Clark. Hell, if anything,
it helps to know that he somewhat lives the weak and downtrodden existences of
the people he wants to help. Somewhat. I can also see his actions as a desire
to protect Clark. After all, the people who give Clark a hard time for being a
nice, decent guy are not good people and would give anyone as mild-mannered as
Clark a hard time. He still accounts for
those people being mere humans; he doesn’t follow them home or trash their
houses or get passionate about it; he usually gives them a harmless, momentary
inconvenience and then gets on with his life. That’s not what Victor and Lex
do. They obsess and act out disproportionately. All the time. Disagree with
them? They ruin your career. Touch them? Sniped at the dinner table while your
family watches. Fuck their daughters? Release the hounds (the hounds are atomic
powered and bark WITH THE VOICE OF DOOM HIMSELF!). I’d add relatable to the
defining list of differences in these behaviors, but that only applies if
you’ve never wanted to shoot anyone in traffic ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment