Big title, short post.

All this Superman talk reminds me of the Doomsday storyline from way back in which Superman is killed. As a strange attempt at selling books (which it certainly did), it revealed the problem of violence in comics, particularly for Superman.

In Doomsday, Superman met an evil he could not prevent and an enemy he couldn’t defeat. He was not stronger or faster than Doomsday. He couldn’t outwit Doomsday because the situation wouldn’t allow for it.

It also revealed the essential character of Superman as protector, rather than responder or advocate, to violence. Doomsday came marching in and Superman put himself in the way. The deadly confrontation was sacrificial. It wasn’t even “last resort” or an attempt at making violence tolerable. He put himself in mortal danger. And was killed.

That was a decade and a half ago. I didn’t keep up with the books more than a couple years afterward. The ensuing plot included the rise of several different heroes claiming the mantle of Superman. Eventually, the real Superman emerged (with long hair, btw) and the stories could continue.

I think the Jesus motifs are far too easy and far too inappropriately applied to Superman generally, Here are good responses by Mark Sandlin and Zack Hunt for why that is. Particularly as Superman is operating in a zeitgeist that is alien to the Jesus story, particularly with the World War origins of the Man of Steel.

I do believe that essential to the character of Superman is his relationship to his power; that unlike Spider-Man’s great line about responsibility, Superman’s true greatness is based in the power he doesn’t use. He is never portrayed as the smartest hero, but his struggle is to always protect people while doing no harm. In this way, Superman turns out to address the most human need of all.

A need that only comes through peace.