Superman 2000 = New 52?

[greyman24]

I don't know if you guys remember this, but Grant Morrison, Mark Waid, Mark Millar and Tom Peyer made a proposal to DC more than a decade ago, talking about a "refresh" of Superman.

This involved a whole bunch of things, like dissolving his marriage with Lois a la One More Day, killing off Pa Kent, and (temporarily, at least) upping his power levels.

The treatment is here, and here's what's interesting. Reading it, you can see some definite parallels between this and the Superman we're seeing in the New 52. Makes sense, with Morrison's involvement.

You guys see this? This mean Supes will be a radical vegan?

[Navarre]

Hopefully not too radical.

Vegans would assert they are more spiritually aware of the entire sphere of life, as indicated by their nutritional ethics. But at this stage in our society, having Superman expose the vegan lifestyle will likely be seen as propaganda, not ethical enlightenment.

[greyman24]

Well, part of the Superman 2000 treatment stated that Superman should be vegetarian. In fact, they stated "his diet would be beans, pulses and windfall, if anything, and his body would be capable of extracting maximum energy from these simple foods if not solely from the sun’s rays."

To be fair, they also said that an issue shouldn't be made of it, and that it need not even be mentioned "on-stage" (whatever that means).

[Navarre]

Yeah, I read that line. They probably mean that it isn't brought up as a topic in the comic but more implied by things like we never see Superman chow down or, if offered a hamburger he will opt for an apple or something.

I don't think there is anything wrong with Superman being vegan. It would just be part of his character.

It is tricky though with characters like him and Captain America because anything they do, say, or imply is taken as "role-modeling". Superman can't snack on Twinkies at the Fortress of Solitude.

[Xian]

I can't remember where- most likely CBR or Newsarama or BC, maybe IGN- but Morrison was asked this point blank.  His reply was essentially, "No."  The pitch found elements of itself popping up in the later works of Waid (Birthright and Irredeemable), Millar, and Morrison, but it was the first stepping stone into his Superman deep-dive which lead to "All-Star", after which he sort of "reset" and is taking a "chronological" approach to Superman for the New 52.

That is, Superman 2000 was still a Bryne/Marvel-styled (remember that Bryne was poached from Marvel, essentially, to do MoS for DC) approach to Superman, focusing, heavily on rationalization.  All-Star and New 52 Superman are more about themes... and Morrison said he wanted to walk the New 52 Superman, thematically, through his historical roots (going from Golden Age themes, to Silver, and so on), with rationalization taking a bit of a backseat to revisiting past historical themes.  Personally, I prefer the Marvel-ish approach, but reasonable minds will differ.

Regarding the veganism.  Originally, in Birthright, I had a violent reaction against that.  I thought it was unnecessary flag-planting by Waid to put his personal stamp on Superman while pointlessly disregarding a history of a beef-fed farmboy who loved beef bourguignon... and having a number of vegan friends, I also know how much it can impact your life- being a public vegan in rural America can easily set you apart far more than being a private alien.  I thought it would unnecessarily isolate Clark during a period when most of the other heroes- particularly Batman- were growing increasingly moody dark loners.

Upon reflection, however, I think it's one of the better ideas Waid came up with for supporting one of the toughest tropes superhero tropes to rationalize... and that's the absolute prohibition on lethal force.  The real world just doesn't work that way.  Cops have guns, our statutes have self-defense justifications, etc.  There are many times where the "no kill" policy for most heroes seems too artificial to suspend your disbelief.  Particularly difficult is the fact most superheroes- Superman in particular- tend to solve problems with violence.  So it isn't that they're complete pacifists, they are simply willing to- routinely- beat you within an inch of your life... something that's tough to rationalize.  However, if Superman has "soul vision" (although, personally, I thought they could have come to the same conclusion without creating a specific and new power to deal with it... his super hearing, sight, touch, etc. together could have collectively created the same effect) which impacted him at a young age, then that specific prohibition becomes much more reasonable.  You learn controlled violence on the football field, but a powerful visceral experience prevents you from ever crossing that particular line.  So it is more psychosis than pledge and- ironically- more rational.

The alternative is you get ridiculous lines like, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

[greyman24]

I get the alienation, and I could buy the compulsive aspect of the decision, but the rationalization of "Why wouldn't a pacifist understand that meat is murder" sounds too much like the insertion of a very particular agenda. Those who eat meat do not equate the slaughter of an animal with the slaughter of a human, and not all of those who do not eat meat do so for ethical reasons.

But Superman 2000 looked to do something very similar in moving through his historical roots. Yes, we started with the Byrne Superman, but once the reset button was hit in that deal with Mr. Mxyzptlk, the idea would be to go back to the Schuster/Siegel version of the character in a way that reads as very similar to New 52.

The S2K version would not be Clark Kent until he traveled to Metropolis: he would go through stages of metamorphosis in his powers as he soaked up more of the sun's rays. Just as the Supes in New 52 Action Comics can't yet fly and isn't quite as fast or strong as the Supes in New 52 JL (set 5 years later), S2K goes from being a weaker, slower teenaged superhero to being the Supes we all know and love as an adult.

[Xian]

the rationalization of "Why wouldn't a pacifist understand that meat is murder" sounds too much like the insertion of a very particular agenda. Those who eat meat do not equate the slaughter of an animal with the slaughter of a human, and not all of those who do not eat meat do so for ethical reasons.

I definitely agreed at first and as presented in the pitch- "meat is murder" is reductionist and troublesome, however, as actually executed in Waid's Birthright, I have less of a problem.

I don't think pacifism enters the equation.  Superman isn't a pacifist.  From his first appearance he's smashing cars, punching baddies, and throwing people around.  Every comic and cartoon rendition of Superman punches people.  The only Superman that doesn't is Superman Returns and Superman The Movie (something rectified by the sequels).  If Superman were a pacifist, it would be a lot easier to reconcile veganism on ethical grounds... the absolute avoidance of pain or cruelty to others.  But Superman doesn't do that.  He's willing to crack your skull, terrify you with multi-story drops, or lock you up in Phantom Zone torment without chance of parole... just not kill you.  And it's difficult to parse out any kind of traditional ethical code that reaches that rationalization.  Religion tends to drive you to either total pacifism, fanatical aggression, or more nuanced positions which allow for justifiable homicide... barring a highly specific religious sect, Clark wouldn't have been raised to allow routine punching but an absolute prohibition on killing.  The law certainly doesn't put an absolute prohibition on killing, reflecting an aggregation of secular and traditional values that killings under certain circumstances should not be punished or are even right.  There's no major philosophy or teaching that promotes routine violence but zero killing... so at that point you have to custom create a very specific individual rational or psychosis for the prohibition.

In Batman Begins, they tried to give Bruce that rationalization by giving him a very specific singular bad experience with his own desire to use lethal force against Falcone... and while that works for the span of the film, more or less, I don't think it really works as an on-going and persistent refusal to kill.  It's basically one single heightened incident... and that sort of thing tends to erode as you age or experience greater future incidents.  Older Batman when faced with the Joker isn't going to defer to the decision of a frightened young Bruce facing Falcone.  So with Superman, a similar singular incident could have been created to produce a similar vow, but I don't think it has the same ingrained and daily nature of veganism.  If it is something based in your food, your diet, your daily sustenance, then the conviction- or psychosis- of Superman's prohibition on killing is more sensible.

Saying "Meat is murder" is reductionist and the pitch being more aggressive than the actual Birthright execution.  Claiming "murder" is a value judgment implying the condemnation of anyone else who partakes, but that isn't how it plays out in the comic.  Again, it's more like a personal psychosis.  Batman, for example, has a personal issue with hoplophobia... but it isn't an ethical position so much as it is a personal fear/issue.  He doesn't campaign for stronger Gotham gun control, he doesn't forbid Alfred from wielding his signature shotguns, he isn't condemning and smacking guns out of the hands of every detective or Commissioner he works with.  He'd hardly look down upon Gordon for having a service arm.  Likewise, though the pitch says "Meat is murder", in Birthright Superman simply has an adverse visceral reaction to seeing life going out of things (again, they could have done without the "soul vision" and just had him routinely experience an abattoir with enhanced senses) which created a personal psychosis, not public condemnation.  Meat- like guns for Batman- would be reliving an unpleasant experience... not grounds for action or activism elsewhere.  It's not like the pro-active Superman- willing to rough up slum lords- would start freeing cattle and tearing down slaughterhouses.  Neither Batman or Superman, despite their prohibitions on killing, are going to fight the State and start foiling capital executions.

So basically, I buy the Birthright logic of Superman's prohibition on killing (and veganism) stemming from psychosis RATHER THAN ethics simply because it's a tricky ethical position when you routinely punch people in the face.  So the pitch is wrong to forward it as an ethical issue, but the actual execution (which doesn't make it come from an ethical pledge) works logically.

But Superman 2000 looked to do something very similar in moving through his historical roots.

I think it's similar in the sense that history was more significant than in the Bryne relaunch, but it's different in that 2K sought to use history to support logic whereas Morrison's New52 seeks to use logic to support history.  From the pitch:

"Our intention is to honor each of Superman’s various interpretations and to use internal story logic as our launching pad for a re-imagined, streamlined 21st century Man of Steel."

So at the end of the day they're still trying to write a Marvel-styled "sensible Superman" and use / "honor" as much of the past as that will allow, but cut / "streamline" as necessary.  So, for example, that meant- particularly to Waid- no Superboy / no Legion because there are logical issues with that DESPITE historical significance.  Morrison, on the other hand, is taking the approach of pushing for historical homage as much as possible and then providing back-door rationalizations to shore up the logic... but history takes precedent even IN SPITE of logic (consider much of his Batman run, heh).  So looking at things like, "Are his parents alive?", 2K would think of the story logistics first, then history, then decide.... New52 would look at history first, logic next, then decide.  With Morrison's Superman, I wouldn't be the least surprised if Clark's parents sprung BACK to life once Superman leaves the Silver Age and enters his Modern era... heck, in a way, we already know he does this as Morrison has said that he sees All-Star Superman as the terminal end of his Action Superman (and All-Star's Pa Kent was alive to die).

Neither approach is right or wrong, but I prefer the Marvel approach over Morrison's off-beat technique.

[Xian]

TL;DR
Superman is more Tony Chu than Ed Begley, Jr.
Morrison justifies history with logic, 2K justifies logic with history.

[Navarre]

A psychosis would pertain to an abnormal condition of the mind. I do not believe we could state that Superman has a psychosis compelling him toward veganism.

But his views on killing seem to extend to the eating of meat. So doesn't this perspective create his personal code of ethics, regardless of whether the rest of society agrees with him or not?

I would see that as not unlike any number of professional athletes (in high-contact sports) or law enforcement officers or soldiers who are vegan.

[Xian]

A psychosis would pertain to an abnormal condition of the mind. I do not believe we could state that Superman has a psychosis compelling him toward veganism.

You're missing the point entirely.  The superhero trope meant to sustain marketable supervillains has a poor internal rationalization- often terrible cheese like "If I kill you, then I become you!"- the absolute [read: without exception; that is NOT comparable to LEOs or soldiers who may justifiably resort to lethal force] prohibition on killing concurrent WITH routine face-punching [read: not pacifism, hardly] is something not found in any form of traditional ethics IS ABNORMAL.  So trying to explain it with a traditional norm would be ridiculous.  Making it a psychosis overcomes that issue.

Personally, my resolution would simply to have Superman kill in exceptional circumstances like normal adults might have to, but since corporate concerns override that, a psychosis isn't a bad alternative considering how well it works for most heroes.

But his views on killing seem to extend to the eating of meat. So doesn't this perspective create his personal code of ethics, regardless of whether the rest of society agrees with him or not?

Ethics prescribes moral weight and value to it.  An absolute prohibition on killing (with punching) isn't really consistent with any traditional ethical system.  So rather than make it an untenable moral issue, the rationalization solution is to make it an irrational psychosis and take ethics out of the question.  That's why Superman doesn't flip over hot dog stands and Batman doesn't melt all of Alfred's shotguns.

I would see that as not unlike any number of professional athletes (in high-contact sports) or law enforcement officers or soldiers who are vegan.

Which is the wrong conclusion to draw since their choices don't arise out of ethics.  For all intents and purposes, Batman's TAS grapple hook was a firearm.  A projectile driven by an exploding cartridge.  Only Bats is comfortable with it, not for any ethical reason, but because the T-shape handle and hook projectile don't look like a traditional pistol.  Superman doesn't have to draw ethic-based distinctions between sentient life, domesticated food-life, justifiable lethal force, or what not since- as executed in Birthright- it isn't a moral or ethical position, it simply arises out of his "soul vision".

Again, it's like Tony Chu.  You wouldn't argue that because Chu kills people that he should have to eat meat.  Chu's position on meat has nothing to do with killing, it's the sensory visions he receives that makes him subsist off canned beets.  Likewise, based on Birthright, you wouldn't argue that veganism = pacifism or that veganism elevates animal life to sentient life or that veganism absolutely prohibits killing or any other half-baked ethical argument BECAUSE Clark's veganism isn't born of ethics, it's born of an adverse sensory experience.

Bottom line, you're drawing too much from veganism as a goal then trying to reverse engineer inconsistent ethical reasons for it... which is exactly the wrong analysis (it's starting with the conclusion: "They want to make a statement about veganism... so here's why it's wrong") rather than seeing veganism merely as the result.  "Here's what they wanted to do... does it say anything about veganism?  Answer: No, except as relevant to other beings with soul vision."

[Xian]

I would see that as not unlike any number of professional athletes (in high-contact sports) or law enforcement officers or soldiers who are vegan.

Which is the wrong conclusion to draw since their choices don't arise out of ethics.

This should read: "...don't arise out of enhanced senses." [typed "e" and just went "ethics" instead of "enhanced"]

Anyways, this illustrates the defective analysis.  Your "proof" is that veganism does not require prohibitions on killing, therefore Superman's prohibition on killing should have no bearing on his veganism.  But that's not a successful logical proof nor is it the point of the rationalization... the argument isn't "Oh, he's a vegan, now it makes sense why he can punch people but never ever kill them even if all traditional norms would justify it!"  The argument is that it supports a superseding non-lethal trope, that is: "Superman can't stand to see the life go out of anything- not his enemies or his food; oh, that's why he never kills and is a vegan."  The circumstances of such veganism say nothing about its ethics- whether cruelty free (inconsistent with punching), diet (redundant given solar sustenance), etc- merely it being the product of sensory aversion (a result, not a goal)... again, more psychosis than principled pledge.

[Navarre]

If I do not believe in killing a human, believe violence is justified to protect myself and those I believe worth protecting, yet have no issue with the killing of animals for my food, is that not an ethical stance?

I hardly see that as having anything to do with a psychosis, which I think is being ascribed arbitrarily and without qualification.

[Xian]

I don't think you get how extreme Superman's position is.  And from your Self-Defense thread it's clear you don't share it.

Superman's position is "If my ONLY option is lethal force, I won't take it EVEN to protect Lois, Metropolis, the World, etc."

Nearly all Western legal, traditional, religious, etc. ethical systems would not agree with his position which leads to the question of how he arrived at it.

If I do not believe in killing a human, believe violence is justified to protect myself and those I believe worth protecting, yet have no issue with the killing of animals for my food, is that not an ethical stance?

Yes that is an ethical stance.  No it isn't relevant to our present discussion of Superman because it doesn't line up any incarnation of Superman being discussed.

You're loose with your description saying "I do not believe in killing a human"... that's easy for most to say, but it doesn't match Superman's traditional extremism on the topic (barring the Phantom Zone criminals and possibly Doomsday- though it should be noted that even with the PZ criminals Superman did not consider himself justified- not how I would have written it, but consistent with his extreme position) when parsed through specific circumstances, particularly in your following comment.  Self-defense and defense of others is a legal justification (based in traditional ethics), up to and including lethal force... something Superman won't do.  So, as a repeated example from the comics, if a villain puts Superman in the situation of either killing or suffering the death of a loved one such as Lois or his parents, Superman won't resort to killing and by writer fiat his decision typically doesn't result in the natural consequences.  So you might say as a result of his experiences he has a rationalized faith in refusing to kill, but it doesn't explain giving rise to that extreme belief initially.

That's the point.  It's irrelevant how you arrive at your ethics because your ethics aren't Superman's and your situations aren't Superman's.  What's relevant is that his choice is aberrant if parsed ethically.  Few philosophies say, "It's okay to risk the fate of the whole city / planet / etc. in order to keep your hands free of justifiable homicide." (doubtless if homicide were your only choice to stop the death of a loved one, you'd take it given your Self-Defense thread- this is NOT what Superman has traditionally done) except pacificism, which isn't consistent with "Nine times out of ten, resolve conflict with violence."  So the issue for a rationalization is: "How does Superman arrive at such an extreme stance?"  The Birthright solution is Soul Vision and the veganism is merely a supporting symptom.  The decision is NOT ethically based because it doesn't come from principles which he extends outwards, promotes, or enforces.  His decision not to eat meat, for example, isn't based on avoiding cruelty because he routinely punches people unnecessarily.

I hardly see that as having anything to do with a psychosis, which I think is being ascribed arbitrarily and without qualification.

I don't think you know what the words "arbitrarily" or "qualification" mean since neither of those apply.  I've already shown that it was non-arbitrary.  It was a highly specific solution to a specific issue, that is, providing a rationalization for an extreme non-lethal stance which would not arise naturally from any traditional ethical source otherwise, making it parallel to Batman's person and type-specific disdain for guns (but allows Alfred shotguns and doesn't mind carrying a federal AOW grapple gun himself).  A psychosis is picked because it avoids the gap in rationality, much like Parker or Wayne's excessive survivor guilt does as motivations for their otherwise aberrant costumed behavior (they weren't raised to don costumes, they were pushed to it by psychosis- likewise, with no explanation for why Superman would be raised with an ABSOLUTE prohibition against killing but prone to violence otherwise, psychosis- a non-arbitrary comic book tradition- fills the gap).

As for "qualification", we've discussed it REPEATEDLY.  The main one being that it is NOT ethics.  That's what's bugging you.  That and a weird assumption of condemnation of you by the 2K pitch ("Meat is murder") and/or Birthright's (psychosis) motivations... in other words, you feel judged and are defending yourself, which is hardly the point.  It isn't about you, your ethics, whether they're right, consistent, or normal.  Your ethics are completely irrelevant, except insofar as they match up with 2K or Birthright Superman's... AND THEY DON'T.  But as much as we are discussing them, THAT'S the main qualification.  Psychosis NOT ethics.  You want that to be a bad word or to show some greater ethical principle or show some sort of norm, but that's the whole point of the main qualification if it is a psychosis it is NOT an ethical standpoint.  It does NOT say anything about you, about veganism, about more significant philosophies, or anything else.  That's a substantial qualification.

The REASON you feel so disagreeable is because you're REFUSING the specificity of the diagnosis (internalizing it as a slight against you somehow) and the essential qualification which prevents it from being about you (or ethics at all).

[Navarre]

It seems to me you are taking a lot more personally than I am. I was only discussing the topic as I saw it.

But you seem to be directing this to somehow be my attempt to validate my ethics or defend myself from personal slight or something else I am not understanding. Your posts are long and loquacious. I am certain there are those who will indulge these to some degree and I sincerely hope you will enjoy the discourse.

I have better things to do than argue with people on the internet. If I needed mortal enemies I have Slappy for that. 

Thank you for sharing your opinions. I have given mine and am happy to leave it at that.

Peace.

[Xian]

But you seem to be directing this to somehow be my attempt to validate my ethics or defend myself from personal slight

A fair assessment since you provide this hypo:

If I do not believe in killing a human, believe violence is justified to protect myself and those I believe worth protecting, yet have no issue with the killing of animals for my food, is that not an ethical stance?

Which would be completely irrelevant to discussing Birthright Superman (as discussed above) since the first belief is absolute and the last belief obviously is inconsistent since Birthright Superman is vegan.  So the only reason to raise it is if you do not mean "If I..." hypothetically but instead mean it literally... as in "This is what I believe."

At which point you seem to get defensive with the following remark:

I hardly see that as having anything to do with a psychosis, which I think is being ascribed arbitrarily and without qualification.

"that" referring to the above belief which can only be your own and not the Birthright Superman being discussed (who, again, is clearly NOT okay with animals as food).  Then follow with the "arbitrary" / "without qualification" attack to discredit an assumed precept.  So compounding the two sentences:

"I am okay with eating animals (and here are MY other values).  I hardly see that (MY values) as psychosis.  You are wrong (arbitrary, etc)."

Your polite disengagement post is nice, but it doesn't erase my point- that you think this discussion is in any way an analysis of your ethics, which I've said- REPEATEDLY is off base.  It is not an analysis of YOUR values, ethics, or what not either as murder (re: meat) or psychosis (re: lethal force), ESPECIALLY since yours don't line up with Superman's!

As a practical example, consider the Sacrifice Arc.  Presented there it WAS an ethical judgment, but that's okay, since ethics evolve (in this case, out of psychosis).  Superman not only said it would be wrong for HIM to kill in a scenario with few other options (as per the psychosis) but ALSO for Wonder Woman to kill Max.  His ethical position is two-fold: 1) There is always another way; 2) It would have been better for WW to kill HIM/Superman than Max.  The first proposition is an evolved rationalization post-psychosis (like Batman having psychosis dictate he must do "something" aberrant after the parents die- but once in the station of Dark Knight evolving ethics on how that should be specifically executed) based in practical experience (read: in the crazy world of the DCU there generally really is always another way) but it wouldn't explain him having that position at the outset right off the farm before he gained DCU experience.  The latter position could be sourced to traditional values of self-sacrifice (better he die than anyone else)... but BOTH positions can also be explained by that initial Soul Vision aversion to death period (1. hating to see others die; 2. if he dies he doesn't have to see another die).

The point is that Sacrifice illustrates just how deeply held and radical Superman's belief in non-lethal force is.  Given the option of having Max live, but perhaps Wonder Woman, Superman, or innocents dying... or Max having to die at Diana's hands sparing her life, Superman's, and innocents... Superman steadfastly believes that Diana was wrong in her choice.  Again, by that time he could call them rationalized ethics, but it wouldn't explain how he got there in the first place, which is why the Soul Vision psychosis death aversion fills that gap.

Again, it isn't the way I'd write it, but that's the way they went to protect corporate interests.  If it were up to me I'd follow a model more like Captain America's where there is clear reluctance and no pleasure in killing, but also an adult understanding that it is sometimes a necessary and justifiable evil.  DC, instead, went the psychosis route- which, incidentally, isn't just me... recall that as a plot-point, Superman was so guilt-ridden over the execution of the Phantom Zone criminals (read: did not consider himself justified) that he had a psychotic break which opened up his mind to be subverted... so even DC pushes the idea that completely justifiable killings are an anathema to Superman in an abnormal fashion ("psychotic break" rather than just normal PTS).