2 bad writer citations is just 2 too many
The Indianapolis Star talks about how fathers don't need to be Superman, just themselves in order to be successful. While I'm sure there's truth to that, the article is sabotaged when the columnist brings up 2 very distasteful sources to make his point. Their quotes are in response to the story of how Jerry Siegel was inspired to create Superman following his dad's murder in a store robbery:
But worse is that they almost all sound like they're taking a negative stance against the assumed reasons why Siegel and Shuster created Superman. The Man of Steel's invulnerability is supposed to be a form of wish fulfillment, something you wish you could've had, even as you know it will never be. In that case, no wonder their respect for these famous figures is as dubious as it should be.
In the end, what matters is that neither writer, based on their writings or their actions, is qualified to speak on the matter, and citing them for an article about the value of being yourself only makes the impact soggy.
“Your father dies in a robbery, and you invent a bulletproof man who becomes the world’s greatest hero,” observes Brad Meltzer, best-selling suspense author. “I’m sorry there’s a story there.”Tsk tsk tsk. On the one hand, they cite a book author who's responsible for penning Identity Crisis for DC, the miniseries that makes light of serious issues like sexual assault, which the historian may have committed. On the other hand, they cite a historian who was recently arrested for uploading child porn to the internet and may have committed sexual assault, a serious issue that the book author's miniseries for DC makes light of. That's double the insult to the intellect, and only makes a mockery of the whole article.
Noted comic-book historian Gerard Jones agrees. “It had to have an effect. Superman’s invulnerabilities to bullets, loss of family…all seem to overlap with Jerry’s personal experience. There is a connection there: The loss of a dad as a source for Superman.”
But worse is that they almost all sound like they're taking a negative stance against the assumed reasons why Siegel and Shuster created Superman. The Man of Steel's invulnerability is supposed to be a form of wish fulfillment, something you wish you could've had, even as you know it will never be. In that case, no wonder their respect for these famous figures is as dubious as it should be.
In the end, what matters is that neither writer, based on their writings or their actions, is qualified to speak on the matter, and citing them for an article about the value of being yourself only makes the impact soggy.
Labels: dc comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Superman, violence
