Where Have All the Cowboys Gone...

I'm briefly reminded of an episode of Greatest American Hero. In it, Ralph Hinkley is excited to find that the actor that played the Lone Ranger on television is coming to town. He excitedly tells his friends and his students about it, going so far as to arrange a field trip to hear the Lone Ranger speak at the local mall. Ralph, unable to properly express what he loves so much about the Lone Ranger, ends up blindly repeating the same statement over and over again: "I grew up on this guy."

Over the past few months, DC Comics has been talking about rebooting its comics continuity (or in simpler terms, starting again from the beginning). Along the way, this means new tweaks and origin stories for many of its characters. And among the most directly affected is the Man of Steel himself, Superman.

Now bear in mind, we haven't seen a ton of what this new Superman is like. Most of our information at the moment is a limited appearance in issue one of Justice League, and a few previews and interviews connected to the upcoming Action Comics #1.



Action in particular will spend time covering the history of Superman and his early crimefighting days. The reaction to this new version of Superman appears to be polarizing. People seem to either love or hate the changes, which involve having Superman be a brasher, more direct, and cocky hero (at least initially). I've heard the reasoning behind why someone should be excited about these new changes, so I decided to list out some of the more popular "pro" arguments and my reaction to them.


PRO: "In Grant we trust..."

Probably the simplest and most easily understood of the pro arguments. With Grant Morrison running Action Comics, he no doubt brings with him a solid fanbase of supporters. Said supporters (I refuse to derivatively call them "fanboys" since every artist has them...) will follow the title simply because they love Morrison's work. And no matter how different or even controversial a story might seem at first, they will stick with it, because they know eventually he will pull it all together in a way that they will enjoy.

Here's my singular issue with that: I don't fall into that category. I respect Grant Morrison and the massive body of work he has accumulated. But for me, I've always been 50/50 when it comes to liking his work. For every really enjoyable creation or story he's created, there's one that leaves me scratching my head. And no matter how many times people tell me that they make more sense on multiple readings, I just can't find the drive to reread his stories more than once. That's just not the kind of storytelling I'm looking for in my comics.


PRO: This Superman is more "relatable."

I've heard this one a few times. Basically the argument is that this new Superman that doesn't always play by the rules and isn't a "boy scout" is more human. People can find a connection to him easier because he acts "like they would if they had the power of Superman."

What this argument neglects, however, is that part of Superman's character strength is that he is beyond reproach. He is above the corruption and moral ambiguity that most of us would suffer from. And this is good. Because a person running around with that much power and not enough restraint would be horrific for so many reasons. And really, they wouldn't be the hero that the world would look up to, and they certainly couldn't become the icon that every hero in the known universe aspires to be more like.

On top of that, you lose the impact of one of Superman's greastest enemies: Lex Luthor. A core element of Lex's character has always been that he harbors an inborn jealousy of Superman. Not just of the raw power that Superman possesses, but of the incorruptible moral fiber that Superman has. Lex resents that such a being exists, as it contradicts everything Lex has learned or been taught about the way of the world. If nothing else, Lex secretly wonders, "Why him? Why not me?"

Creating a flawed Superman presents a chink in the armor. It's a glaring hole that Lex can use to turn the entire public against Superman. Heck, half the world will be against Superman right off the bat, because Superman is not the walking paragon of righteousness that he normally would be. And to me, that's kind of a shame.


PRO: This Superman will grow into the hero we all know and love. And it will be fun to see that happen.

Don't get me wrong. It's a timeless story, and when well told, it's an enjoyable one. A hero, initially well intentioned but misguided in their actions, learns to overcome their own personal flaws and become a better person. And by doing so, they become a better hero.

It's a good story. Very Greek. I'd even say I love to see that journey in a hero. Problem is, that isn't Superman. It's not his story, and it doesn't fit him. On top of that, I've actually seen the story done with a guy that has an 'S' on his chest. His name is Superboy. And given his background and history, it does fit him.

The thing is, you don't tell a good Superman story by making him human and then finding a way to make him great. You tell a good Superman story by letting Superman be great, and then finding a way to bring out his humanity. There's a subtle, but important difference there.

And if you must tell a story where Superman shows his mortal failings, then it's just that: a story. A single arc or standalone that highlights that he's having a bad day/week/whatever. You don't give him an "I used to be an ***hole" phase that he will never be able to live down.


PRO: This version of Superman is more like the way he was when he originally premiered.

Ignoring that the character premiered virtually a lifetime ago (and that's considering good luck and healthy living...), there's nothing that inherently says that reverting a character to its original form is the most logical course of action. Exploring it is always an option, yes, but implying that it's somehow the natural thing to do - a logical evolution of a character - makes no sense.

Otherwise, why have we seen a relatively untouched Batman as opposed to a "reversion" to the gun-toting, villain killing hero that was part of his early days? If that had happened, no doubt the Bat-fanbase would go ballistic to screams of, "Batman would never do that! That's not what Batman is!" Which leads me to...


PRO: This new look will probably bring in new readers and increase sales.

Sales are an important factor in any business. And it would be crazy to expect a company, even one in an artistic medium, to trade potential sales over some sense of artistic integrity. Obviously, if you think you can make more sales, you make a change.

The question then becomes what happens to sales once the flash and sparkle of the initial issues wears off. Will older readers who were turned off by the new changes come back and help support/boost sales? If you decide to change Superman gradually back into the more noble, "less relateable" character that kept your new readers away, will they stick around or jump ship? No one can say for certain, but it's been my perception that the end result of dramatic changes for the sake of creating new interest is usually a return to the status quo, both story-wise and sales-wise.

**********

So what does all this mean? Well... nothing. At the end of the day, I'm just one 30-something guy with an opinion and without a crystal ball. For all I know, a decade or two from now, people will be whimsically talking about Superman's Boy Scout phase in the same breath as they do the period that Superman juggled planets and constantly antagonized Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane. And whether the world will be a better place (or DC will be better off financially) because of that, I can't say.

But for me, I kind of feel the way that Ralph Hinkley did during that episode of Greatest American Hero. I'm just staring off into space, trying to explain to a bunch of kids why it should even matter at all, and finding that the only argument that matters to me is, "I grew up on this guy..."