Marc Singer has up a long and thoughtful post about Grant Morrison’s run on All Star Superman (brought to my attention by my brother…thanks Eric!)
Anyway, you should definitely read the whole thing, but for this discussion I’m going to quote the last bit here:
After viewing the world through Superman’s eyes, though, Luthor gets with the All Star program. He realizes “The fundamental forces are yoked by a single thought”–apparently the entire universe is “thought-controlled!” His enlightenment and defeat aren’t just the typical final-act reversals; they enact the triumph of the ideal over the material. Or, as Superman tells Luthor (while laying him out with a decidedly material, decidedly anticlimactic, decidedly satisfying punch) “Brain beats brawn every time!” In grand superhero tradition, Morrison stages a conflict of ideas and resolves it through the physical embodiments of his characters… which itself happens to be a perfect illustration of their ability to embody our ideals.
But tragically, perfectly, the story doesn’t end there. Superman converts to pure “solar radio-consciousness,” pure information, pure idea, yet he still manages to save us all one last time. He ends the series presiding serenely over Metropolis and Earth, maintaining the sun that keeps them alive, duplicating his earlier custodianship of Kandor on a much larger scale. And he ends it as a purely ideal being inspiring others to do better, duplicating his relationship to us poor souls down here on Earth-Q, where he’s never been anything else. Trust Morrison to end All Star Superman with one more radical variation of scale, one more blurring of fiction and reality–but trust him also to apply these familiar games to a new theme, one perfectly matched to his character, about the power of ideas; the power of inspiration; the power of hope.
I’ve read the first bits of Morrison’s story. I thought it was entertaining enough, and from what I read Marc’s contentions here seems reasonable…that is, yes, Morrison’s interests are about inspiration, about the power of fictions and of the ideal.
The thing that leaves me kind of cold, though, in both Morrison’s story and in Marc’s essay is…what ideals are we talking about? You can’t have an ideal without content. As just one example, Christian ideals (meekness, sacrifice, mercy) aren’t necessarily the same as American ideals (freedom, opportunity, self-assertion.) And neither are quite the same as, say, Jewish ideals. Or Viking ideals. Or Japanese ideals (and yes, none of these ideals are monolithic either, but you get the general point.) Marc says that Superman is “inspiring us to do better,” but do better at what? Commit fewer crimes? Lift bigger weights? Donate more to charity? What is ethically at stake here?
To cut to the chase; I don’t think there’s anything ethically at stake here. Nothing in Marc’s post, and nothing in the issues I read, suggested that Morrison was interested in, or willing to, raise the sorts of questions you have to raise if you actually want to try to place super-heroes in some sort of coherent moral framework. To just touch on some of the most obvious issues; the whole idea of the super-hero is kind of fascist (law-and-order perfect genetic vigilantes beating the stuffing out of overly intellectual criminal masterminds.) Relatedly, the whole framework of crime and justice in which super-hero comics operate deliberately skirts any kind of political or social engagement. Having other non-divine people constantly offer salvation is not especially theologically subtle. And so forth.
This doesn’t mean that you can’t talk about ideals intelligently in a super-hero comic. Alan Moore did in Watchmen and Miracleman; I think Grant Morrison himself did in Animal Man. But you do need to be willing to talk about something concrete. Cold war politics and the bankruptcy of both right and left in Watchmen; animal rights and non-violence in Animal Man. Life without ideals is arguably monstrous, but ideals without life are nothing — just hot air.
The crux of the matter for me is when Marc says that Morrison is saying, “If Superman didn’t exist we would have to invent him.” No. No we wouldn’t. Superman’s a copyrighted, invented, commercial character, who happens to have been around for a while. He has cultural meaning and significance, but in himself — he’s not an ideal. He’s not Christ; he’s not the Buddha, he’s not God; there’s no systematic , profound, thoughtful tradition to explain what he is and what he stands for. You want him to be meaningful or stand for something, you’ve got to tell a story which makes him stand for something beyond…I don’t know, nostalgia, and niceness, and protecting people from crime and violent death. (I mean, crime and violent death are bad things, but “safety” as a spiritual sine qua non leaves something to be desired.)
Maybe Morrison really does the work I’m talking about in those last issues; maybe I’d be a lot more impressed with the end than with the beginning. But Marc strikes me as an eloquent apologist, and despite his enthusiasm and his intelligence, I really don’t see anything in his review that suggests that this series has anything to say beyond, “Superman inspires us because…um, well…because we’re comics geeks?”
I guess I’m waiting for the day when Superman gets taken all the way back to his roots and starts acting like a socialist again. Maybe now that we’re entering another Depression we could have him beating up mine bosses again, huh? You can tell that that’s authentic, 100%, real idealism, because it would actually have the potential to piss somebody off.
Noah,
Some of Marc’s subtext is that Supes is a symbol of Hope, “our better selves,” etc., linking him to the Obama campaign (scroll down Marc’s blog for this to be made explicit)…but I tend to doubt this is Morrison’s game…just a happy coincidence. Still, even that subtext is questionably socially/politically given the absence in ASS (I just realized one could acronym the title in such a way) of any content other than the typical Superman content –(moral perfection, whatever that means)
It really is a bit pointless to critique something you haven’t read, when you honestly don’t know whether the objectives you believe Morrison should have met are achieved or not. How hard would it have been to track down and read the remaining issues? I also think your contention that morality has to be mapped to some specific pre-existing religious or social framework is wilfully misguided. nd to expect a political ramification is really missing the point.
Eric, linking Superman to Obama is even sillier, I think. Superman’s a mainstream big-government liberal? He’s going to fix the healthcare system? I mean, Obama’s platform is somewhat hazy, but it seems a lot more specific than anything Superman’s got….
Nick, I was responding to Marc’s essay, which I’ve read. It’s a conversation, not a master’s thesis. If you wanted to join in, you could explain why you think Morrison did or did not succeed.
In reference to the criticisms you did make… Why is it misguided to think that morality has to mean something? If Morrison had developed an entirely new system of morality, that would be okay too. Or do you subscribe to the old 18th century view that morality is a priori evident? I guess you could go from there to arguing that all morality is the same and so any explanation is superfluous. I can’t say I subscribe to that myself, but I guess it’s a viewpoint….
And I don’t expect a political ramification; a story about giant monsters hitting each other would be fine — no problem with that. But if you write something with pretensions, then it seems fair to critique you on the basis of whether they make any sense or not.
In ASS #10 G.M. makes the “if there was no Superman we’d have to invent him” argument explicit, interspersing the narrative with scenes of Nietzsche, Siegel and Shuster, and a sort of mutli-culti collage of god-making. If there’s a message its that every time and place has a Superman to satnd in for its ideals… One could read this as an attempt by GM to reconcile humanism and relativism, or as an idealization of the creative process itself (something I wouldn’t put past him).
Thanks for the link and the comments, Noah.
Your point about ideals without content is well taken, but the call for placing superheroes in “some sort of coherent moral framework,” particularly the point about superheroes skirting “political or social engagement,” seems a little musty, a bad leftover (or hangover?) from the eighties. Comics have been doing that for twenty years, and they usually reach the same tired conclusions about fascism (Animal Man being one of the rare exceptions). It’s to Morrison’s credit that All Star Superman largely avoids that well-worn path. With the exception of Luthor, he avoids talking about crime and justice; maybe one or two other criminals appear in the series and they hold absolutely no importance. Decoupling the superhero comic from these serious, meaningful discussions of law and order, most of which end up with a guy in a costume hitting another guy in a costume anyway, is probably one of the freshest moves Morrison makes.
That isn’t to say he avoids the other issues you raise. Issue #9 tackles that hoary old idea, the fascist (or at least cultural imperialist) superman, and finds him wanting. But what superhero comic in the last two decades hasn’t tackled it? This is one of the reasons I was left so cold by the issue, until subsequent ones made it clear that the comic was doing another job as well, motivating Superman to increase his commitment to a different set of ideals.
What are they? As seen in the last four issues in particular: compassion (even for his rivals or enemies), forgiveness (ditto), progress (particularly through scientific research), responsibility for others’ well being, curiosity, creativity, and a commitment to put these other ideals into action. These aren’t tied to any political ideology, but they absolutely are ethical stances (and some of them, like Superman’s commitment to building a better future through scientific progress, imply certain political ideologies, at least in our current cultural moment).
No, this is not a party platform and it doesn’t offer the kind of explicit political engagement you call for. I’m not sure that a Superman comic needs to, for some of the very reasons you list. Superman is a long-lived character with a cultural meaning much larger than any one political ideology (even the two-fisted New Deal liberalism he started out with). Tying him down to a single politics would be both difficult and reductive, especially given the premise Morrison has chosen for his project–synthesizing all prior versions of the character into a seamless whole.
Superman now stands for a kind of general, free-floating concept of decency and inspiration, as seen by all those Obama comparisons I linked to in the previous post (and the many, many more I did not link to). It’s not tied to ideology, but to idealism–Obama’s fans see him as a good guy, as one of the most openly moral figures in liberal politics in decades, as someone who inspires their own hope, so they post a photograph or a video that explicitly compares him to Superman. QED. Superman has become one of the first figures our culture calls to mind when we thinks of these traits. (The other being Jesus, and Morrison does not shy away from Christian references and narrative structures any more than Obama or the Daily Show shy away from manger jokes.) Morrison did not invent this trait, obviously, but he knows the character comes with it and he’s chosen to make it the centerpiece of his comic, building his ethical argument where the character already stands.
The line about having to invent Superman ourselves was a too-cute reference to something that happens in issue #10, which attempts to supply the tradition you say he’s lacking. I have to agree with Nick–I think your post would have been written very differently had you read the last half of the series, especially the last four issues, where all this plays out. Which is not to say you would have liked it, but you would find it hard to say the comic doesn’t articulate any ideals or place anything at stake. Any vagueness in my review is mine, not Morrison’s. But then, an eloquent apologist would say that. :)
Actually, that may be the biggest error in your post–I don’t see myself as an apologist, eloquent or otherwise, because I don’t see All Star Superman as having anything to apologize for.
The idealogy of All-Star Superman is a secular/sci-fi variation on Christianity. In Bloomian terms, Superman is Morrison’s creative misreading of Jesus Christ.
Newsarama is currently publishing an in-depth interview with Morrison about All-Star Superman. In Part 1, he briefly talks about what he thinks Superman represents and some of the symbolism used to express this.
To paraphrase, Morrison says that his version of Superman is the ultimate Everyman who represents what the common man wishes he could be. Although he doesn’t say it, when he refers to “Everyman”, I think he really means “Adult Male Comic Book Fan”.
He does talk about working class values and Superman as the “ideal inner self come to life”, but I didn’t get the idea from the interview that Morrison is pushing any specific moral code or agenda, other than “Wouldn’t it be neat if you were Superman?”.
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/100821-All-Star-Morrison-01.html
Eric, Part II has a question about the acronym ASS.
Hey Marc. Thanks for stopping by.
“Superman now stands for a kind of general, free-floating concept of decency and inspiration…”
That’s exactly what I find so irritating about him, and the project in general, alas…
The general ideals Marc talks about are what I picked up from the series too…and I did read the whole thing. The problem is that these are the kind of general, fuzzy, vague ideals of “superheroes” in general, post Golden Age (when there was a more explicit, if jingoistic, politics attached). The 60s Marvel Heroes basically had this same kind of things…they made mistakes, were alienated, but stood for our “better selves,” sacrifice, compassion,even scientific curiosity (calling Reed Richards!) etc. I don’t see much new here. I kind of like Morrison’s approach to the same ideas in Final Crisis better (so far) insofar as it takes a different tack…giving us a universe where such values are becoming extinct. At least it’s an a bit more extreme testing of these classic superheroic ideals… No doubt the ending can’t help but be predictable though (which at least was not a problem in the non-continuity ASS).
I would point out that there is no Superman, and “we” did invent him…so to quibble with that part seems silly… (I guess we didn’t HAVE to, but come on)
I think there’s definitely something to be said for using superhero comics to light up big, general themes in a very unusual way. A lot of Kirby’s best work does this, as do many of Gerber’s 70s superhero books, and I reckon that this is what Morrison is up to in books like All Star Superman and Seven Soldiers.
This approach requires a very distinctive, idiosyncratic sort of strangeness, so I think there’s a link between how much you enjoy Morrison’s attempts to provide a fresh perspective on the tropes of the Superman mythos and how much you enjoy his take on these potentially fuzzy themes.
Personally, I love it – there’s a definite “hall of mirrors” structure going on throughout ASS, which allows Morrison to reflect various BIG (but maybe slightly banal and cliched?) thoughts about general decency and mortality using many facets of Superman’s ever-wonky history.
Of course, Frank Quitely and Jamie Grant’s contribution can’t be understated here – there was a post on Mindless Ones recently that discussed how the art on the series calls to mind a child’s playset given fresh life, and I’d say that’s definitely true. This mostly comes through in the play between Quitely’s alternately boxy/stick thin caricatures and the sense of depth and perspective Quitely and Grant achieve through suggestive body language and lighting, and… it’s very fitting, even poignant at times.
The whole series seems to me like the depiction of a childish world that’s coming to terms with mortality and trying to figure out how to respond, which is where I think the drama comes from. To push forward and actually try to help people out, like our All American Hero*, or to lash out (like Lex) or lose yourself in self pity (like Zibarro)? This all sounds a little too general (because it is) but there are several twists and details that I’m omitting here for the sake of brevity. Marc’s posts on the series have been particularly strong on these points though, so… I guess while I can understand why you might find the themes and execution of the series a little too vague, I think there are plenty of specifics to get hooked on.
* I can almost hear eyes rolling back into skulls as I type this sentence, but hey – sometimes vague clichés have real importance. And sometimes they’re just a mask for vapid bullshit, so… look, a baby sun eater!
Hey David. Your post makes me hold out hope that I might actually like the thing when I finish it; really, you make it sound enticing.
Baby sun eater…you’re not referencing what I think you’re referencing, are you?
I know you’re burdened by your undying obligation to trash DC and Marvel (excepting the undeniable classics like WATCHMEN), but attempting to criticize ASS because Superman’s heroism isn’t SPECIFIC enough is really reaching.
Actually, if you poke thorugh the blog, you’ll discover that I have no bias against DC or Marvel. I just hate everything.
Noah, I think it’s fair to say that if you’re looking for ASS to fit within some sort of coherent moral framework then it’s probably best to look elsewhere.
That said, moral frameworks are all well and good but very few comics have ever made me actually want to go out and help a granny cross the road, or fire up my computer and get down to some serious creative writing. All Star Superman’s idealism might be “free-floating” but it’s also, I think intentionally, bloody inspirational (particularly issue 10), and that’s something to be treasured.
I don't think the super-guy in All Star Superman was particularly moral at all.
In issue one he lets the suicide bomber genetically engineered Luther clone thing kill himself in the name of freedom, which, while I think might be a perfecly morally defensible act,is a very alien morality to mainstream western culture.
Later in the series, Superman is dying of super-cancer and tries to cure it, fails, then uses the technique to cure real cancer… which is an incredibly selfish act.
Apparently curing real cancer wasn't a priority until Superman was facing it himself.
It reminded me of the joke from Futurama:
LEELA
Bender a turtle isn't yourself. Why do you care about it?
BENDER Because I also care deeply of things that remind me of myself.
And then there's his stunted emotional deveopment with Lois Lane. In an interview Morrsison said that Superman is basically, metaphorically, just a middle aged fantasy by normal, dweebish, human being Clark Kent. I guess he has a secret crush on Lois Lane, the woman who will never see him as anything but a boring dork. In the Superman fantasy, he gets to show off and win over the girl. Hardly a symbol of morality, that.