Last week I gushed about Action Comics #983, claiming it transported me back to a younger age. The brutal fight, the twists and turns, the Superman Family feel of that comic grabbed me. Suddenly I was young Anj again.
This week I got transported back in time again. Reading Superman #27, I felt like that young Anj again. This time it wasn't the epic action or crazy super-heroics that did it. Instead it was the lesson in civics within the issue.
I grew up in a time when comics were a place to learn lessons about good and evil. It was a place where the heroes were immaculate role models. I learned right and wrong from my parents, growing up in a stable, loving home with 'by the book' parents. But comics reinforced those lessons. Do good by people. Follow the law. You have rights but we live in a society; your rights shouldn't supercede anyone else's. This was also a time where the heroes starred in one page public service announcements talking about not running away, keeping the streets clean, and the danger of hitchhiking.
I didn't mind those lessons. I was inspired by them. In comics today, where every hero seems conflicted, where heroes kill, where 'evil is relative', where fighting/flaunting authority is the default, there are few lessons in civics or civility. (I know ... I know ... I'm old.)
This issue shows Superman and Lois taking a vacation, reminding Jon what a great country America is at its core, and teaching him a few lessons along the way. Plotters Patrick Gleason and Peter Tomasi give us a nice throwback sort of a story. And the art by Scott Godlewski is loose enough to keep the book from feeling weighed down by the material.
I loved it.
The book opens with a fun little moment. An exhausted Lois and Jon fall asleep at the dinner table waiting for Superman to get home from heroing. An exhausted Superman falls asleep while flying home, crashing into the Hamilton homestead. It is clear. Everyone needs a vacation.
I love the idea of Superman being so worn out that he snoozes. It humanizes him. We can all empathize with this. Too funny.
Lois surprises everyone by renting a mobile home to travel the country and see some sights of American history. Everyone gets two places of interest. Plugged into the GPS they head out.
I love how excited Jon is as he explores the Winnebago. This is a kid who has been on the moon and fought demonic cows. But he is still a kid, jumping on the bed, hoping to fill the fridge with hot pockets, and generally jazzed. That just feels right.
The first stop is a sight that is about a mile down the road from my home.
In Sharon MA, Lois visits the grave of Deborah Sampson, a woman who posed as a man and fought in the Revolutionary War. When discovered she was honorably discharged. She fought for back wages and won. Nice lesson. Break down silly barriers. Fight for what is right. Never stop fighting until you get what you are deserved.
On the road again, Lois then discusses the 'Coexist' bumper sticker with Jon.
In New York, Jon takes the family to a WWI statue honoring those who fought. Jon notices that graffiti has been spray painted on one of the soldiers. Clark tells him that whoever did that has no respect for the past or those who fought for them.
A superspeed cleaning later, everything is better.
Another nice lesson. Respect those who earned us the rights we enjoy.
There Clark talks about honor. This was a scary and bold step these forefathers were taking. They were risking their lives, staking their sacred honor on this decision.
Sometimes to get things right, you need to risk everything.
Later, the Kents bring a homeless vet into a restaurant to buy him a hot meal. The waitress warns them that should the homeless man become a distraction, they have the right to kick him out. Clark says outright that this soldier should be honored for what he has done for that restaurant, protecting it. He did more than the celebrity's who dot the wall.
During the meal, the man talks about how he lost his leg in battle and how coming home has been tough. In the end, the owner of the restaurant offers the vet a job in the kitchen. The job might be overkill but this lesson in empathy and respect and appreciation was great.
There is Jon seeing his parents ideals, learning these lessons, and becoming a better person.
These were the lessons my folks taught me. And these were the lessons Superman and others repeated. Yep, I'm young Anj all over again.
But my favorite page might be the last couple. With Jon in bed, the two adults decide to have a glass of wine and make out under the stars. Just fantastic. There is something so wonderful about seeing these two together, still so clearly in love, taking a moment to just enjoy each other's company. And it is so beautifully rendered by Godlewski. I wish the book ended on a kiss but instead Clark gets called away as Superman to an emergency. I guess that's a lesson too.
Call me old fashioned. Call me ancient. I loved this issue. I wouldn't need this every month. But now and again, I don't mind being reminded that these are heroes with morals and ethics and a sense of civility that transcends the tawdry cynicism of these days.
Overall grade: A
13 comments:
This issue was a big nope for me and I will pretend it's not canon.
Teaching Jon history and compassion I agree with, but the dominant man-of-the-house-behavior belong in the 50s. Jon can apparently handle school. Kids need to be kids as well, throwing out the TV because HE wants the vacation to be a certain way is a dick move. Also he is just as rude as the diner staff himself, pushing his beliefs about the military's contribution to society vs the civilians.
This has a smell of the writers personality so much more than Supermans.
I realize I feel this issue is poor because I have other values than the author, and some with another background will see it in a whole different light. But nope, nope, nope not for me. Worst action comic in Rebirth and maybe worst Action comic ever. I do not want main contuinity Superman with this behavior.
Action Comic = Superman.
Easy mixup
I hated it. I'm not American and I couldn't care less for the history lesson. It felt to me more like reading a wikipedia page than a Superman story.
I think you might be in the minority on this issue Anj. From what I've read, this was a very unpopular issue amongst the fans, myself included. It felt preachy, forced and a pretentious lecture rather than the inspirational morale that Superman is supposed to represent. Clark insisting that the wounded soldier be allowed to eat in the diner despite the diner having the right to refuse service was not handled well at all. It's not a case of not having empathy, it's that a diner is a business and as such can remove people they don't want in there. Multiplicity used to be my least favourite Superman Rebirth story but now this replaces it. I'm looking forward to this two part story being over.
Louis
If Anj is in the minority I'm delighted to be right there beside him. I can see folk feeling this is a bit preachy, because it is, but good grief, objecting to the messages of respect and tolerance? May we all be lucky enough never to fall on hard times. It's one comic out of several dozen that will feature Superman, Lois and Jon this year, and I'm delighted it's being used to emphasis the message kids reading this - and there will be some, comics are expensive but young people do have access - are already getting at home and at school.
And if they aren't getting it already, then thank the stars for this comic.
Obviously I'm with Martin.
If a comic teaching about equality and human decency is horrible, maybe it's time I get out of this blogging business.
You shouldn't go out of the blogging business Anj. You are a great beacon of light. I don't think anyone thinks that teaching about equality and human decency is horrible. No one wrote that from what I can see. The problem is that Superman was grossly disrespectful while teaching those lessons. He could have talked civilized about it with the waitress like any decent human being, but he opted to make a scene, disrespecting the work of hardworking actors in the process and disrespecting the people who had nothing to do with the waitress who were there trying to eat. He came out as someone who puts different value on people depending on their occupation.
Teaching equality and decency starts with living it yourself, and in this Superman's mind an actor isn't the equal of a soldier and he displayed little decency to the other people in the restaurant. The hero here was the diner owner in my opinion.
"If Anj is in the minority I'm delighted to be right there beside him."
DITTO!
"I can see folk feeling this is a bit preachy, because it is, but good grief, objecting to the messages of respect and tolerance?"
And especially when Clark tells about one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, or how he tells someone who worships a bunch of phony actors and actresses.
"In the end, the owner of the restaurant offers the vet a job in the kitchen. The job might be overkill but this lesson in empathy and respect and appreciation was great."
It was, especially given the current big mess facing veterans in real life.
"If a comic teaching about equality and human decency is horrible, maybe it's time I get out of this blogging business."
THE HELL YOU WILL, ANJ!
This book reminds me of the SHAZAM! live action TV show from the 1970's. The Filmation shows (1974-76) taught youth about life lessons for the time, including drugs, drunk driving and tolerance. May have seemed preachy to some, but the message came through, even to me.
To those hating on this book, it's like hating on Western Civilization.
" I don't think anyone thinks that teaching about equality and human decency is horrible."
I certainly wasn't saying that. And there have been scenes from Tomasi and Gleason's Superman run that were very uplifting and inspiring. Superman telling Jon that being who he is isn't about his powers or costume but about character and always doing the right thing come to mind. I have no problem with Superman being used to teach a moral message when it's done properly.
"The problem is that Superman was grossly disrespectful while teaching those lessons. He could have talked civilized about it with the waitress like any decent human being, but he opted to make a scene, disrespecting the work of hardworking actors in the process and disrespecting the people who had nothing to do with the waitress who were there trying to eat."
I think this anon quote summarises what my problem with the diner scene was. It didn't sound like Clark was saying those lines but that he was a mouthpiece for the writers. He was being rude and disrespectful to the diner and its customers and that's not in Superman's character either. Not to mention that he didn't consider the valid reasons for not allowing the wounded soldier into the diner either. It felt too black and white in the most simplistic sense.
Also please don't get out of the blogging game Anj, I love your reviews and opinion pieces.
Louis
Speaking as a non-American Superman fan I enjoyed it well enough - I love seeing the Kent/Lane clan on downtime - but I'm not sure it travels well.
Don't get me wrong the values expressed in the story are things I agree with, even if the delivery is slightly preachy, but since I don't live in the States I definitely had a weaker emotional connection with the tone than an American reader might have. Again I didn't dislike the tone at all but it felt very strongly addressed to Americans if that makes sense.
This was a GREAT issue that reinforced everything that Superman stands for and symbolizes... Truth, Justice, and the AMERICAN Way!
The. Mouthpiece argument is interesting to me.
Are the Bombshells there to act as a mouthpiece for Marguerite Bennett? Do you think so?
I am sure that every character becomes a little bit of voice for the write.
My guess is when politics differ, that complaint becomes more prominent.
I think many writers use the characters as a mouthpiece for themselves, definitely so Bennett, at least when it comes to the Bombshells. The important thing to remember is that they must own up to what they do to the characters in their universe, as that becomes part of that canon.
For a huge character like main Superman that means being very responsible as a writer. When a writer tells us that it is Superman's opinion that actors have no real value, it has consequences. Is it only actors that Superman believes does not contribute anything to society, or anyone who works with entertainment? From his tone it sounds like only warriors are of real value to society.
Things that lack real value, are they any point of even having? Why is Superman even saving people that he considers to generate no real value? Does he view civilians as rats that he in his glory are saving? Wait, is this the same Superman that died in the fight with Doomsday, I thought I saw that when he merged with new 52? Has he always held these opinions since then or did they take shape with time?
Thoughts like that build up for me, and that's a big problem for me when it comes to the main line characters. I expect villains to look down with contempt on people, I understand it when it is in a dark universe, but letting us now know after decades how main arc Superman truly feels about some civilians taints his whole history.
It might seem petty to nitpick so hard on that one scene, but words mean something. Writers of all people should know that.
Post a Comment