Something I don't understand

[james_davis_nicoll]

Why the change from having Jonathan Kent support Superman's career as a hero to opposing it?

Supergirl, as I recall, has always had someone trying to discourage her. In the old days it was Superman. And I cannot recall if the Danvers had any idea she was Supergirl; they may not have had the option to support or discourage her.

Not that comic book characters age in real time but if she was 16 in her first 1959 appearance, Supergirl would have become an adult at a very interesting time for women's rights in the US...

Comments

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

The original version of Pa Kent must've been a Klan member and thus saw vigilantes as a natural and good part of American culture, whereas the modern version is a good and upstanding citizen who realizes that extra-legal law enforcement violates fundamental civil liberties and must be discouraged in all circumstances.

[liviapenn.livejournal.com]

The thing about classic Superman, though, is that his powers operate on such a scale that he's really wasting them on law enforcement. He should be dealing with natural disasters, including helping with search & rescue after the fact, building or repairing necessary infrastructure, stuff like digging wells in areas without running water, de-land-mining mined areas, saving sinking ships & crashing planes, etc. Surely there's enough floods and fires in the world to keep him pretty busy; it's a frivolous use of his time to deal with purse snatchers. From that perspective, preventing him from operating in the world to help people can really only be a sociopathic choice (as indeed in "Man of Steel" when Pa Kent advised it would have been better for him to let a school bus full of children drown rather than reveal himself.)

[glaurung-quena.livejournal.com]

1960's and 1970's Superman was almost never doing petty law enforcement, most of the time he was too busy fighting alien invaders and megalomaniac sociopaths like Lex Luthor.

[nathan helfinstine (from livejournal.com)]

You need to take a moment to read this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2305

[beamjockey.livejournal.com]

How does Zack Weinersmith escape doom when he draws a (pretty good) comic about S*p*rm*n?

Is it protected as a parody? How, exactly?

Can I draw my own comic about S*p*rm*n as long as I make it sarcastic?

[graydon saunders (from livejournal.com)]

There are early 40s Superman animations that are out of copyright, so the straight-up image of Superman is probably defensible without the parody defense.

Then you've got the parody defense and it being a one-time thing only indirectly for sale. Making a habit of using Superman's image would (I expect) be a problem, but going after this particular comic in the US strikes me as impossible.

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

Doesn't work that way. Copyright and trademark are separate things, and a particular work dropping into the public domain doesn't undermine the trademark holder's rights. You can put out a Blu-Ray of Max Fleischer Superman cartoons, you can even use images from the cartoons on the cover, but you can't commission your own original art of Superman, because that's still protected by DC's trademarks -- and trademark holders are actually required to defend their mark if they want to maintain their rights, which is why you get Disney suing preschools for painting Mickey and Donald on the walls.

I'd guess the comic is relying on the parody defense. But it's important to note that parody only applies if the derivative work is commenting on the original. If you stray too far and use the original work for general social commentary, you put yourself at legal risk.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

It's probably relying more on DC's general goodwill. They've been famously lawsuit-crazy in the past, but these days they're more likely to try to co-opt good cartoonists who do sufficiently interesting things with their characters. Kate Beaton made those sketches of surly Wonder Woman and ended up doing one or two short comic stories about her for a DC indie collection.

Of course, it's playing with fire.

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

...am I right about that? Perhaps I am not right about that. I thought that was the case, but Beaton's work for the Big Two seems to have been for Marvel.

[liviapenn.livejournal.com]

I think you're thinking of Noelle Stevenson (her webcomic is Nimona) -- she draws a lot of fanart as well, and has also done Wonder Woman stories for DC.

[abigail-n.livejournal.com]

Actually, according to this article, the Superman radio serial had an anti-KKK storyline in 1946 that had a profound impact (I'm dubious of the claim that it "singlehandedly thwarted" the Klan, though).

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

Nonetheless, the message of Superman, like all non-deconstructive superhero stories, is "Hooray for vigilantes! They can catch criminals that our law enforcement system can't handle," which has roots in white supremacy and ties to fascism. Superman's just a cleancut version of Dirty Harry.

[ian wright (from livejournal.com)]

No, that's a simplistic interpretation. Superman started by fighting the wealthy and powerful and getting into fights with the National Guard. Batman started at a time when minorities had even better reason to distrust the cops than they do now, and many city officials in New York were either flat-out racist and classist or openly corrupt. Captain America was a premature anti-fascist who punched Nazis back when a lot of Americans thought the Nazis had the right idea. These are progressive revolutionaries, not fascists.

[sean o'hara (from livejournal.com)]

Vigilantes are vigilantes even if they wear spiffy suits. The idea of extra-legal law enforcement to either reinforce impotent police or enforce societal rules beyond the bounds of actual laws is inherently fascist.

[ian wright (from livejournal.com)]

They weren't "extra-legal law enforcement". They were revolutionaries who attacked governors, cops, and the military. If striking back against the power structure of the day is inherently fascist, what does that make Idle No More or environmental protestors?

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but that is so out of touch with the origin of Superman that it's funny. The character was created by two leftish Jewish men. The first people he fought were corrupt businessmen and politicians.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

I think much of this disagreement is confusion of tenses. One side is correct about what Superman WAS, when created. The other is (IMO) correct about what Superman IS, and has mostly been since the 1950s.