Concerning Superman and Frodo

March 12, 2008 1:22 AM

lot of people I know that know comic books complain that Superman isn't a very interesting character because he doesn't have any weaknesses. He's faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. His skin can't be broken even by a nuclear explosion. No poisons can even slow him down. And, if the movies are to be believed, even time is but a mere inconvenience to the Man of Steel.

Yeah, yeah, there's kryptonite, but what kind of a fucking contrivance is that? Superman's foes never outsmart him--he has super intelligence, too, remember?--and he's never has conflicts of conscience. The only thing that can stop him is some external substance.

In short, many portrayals of the character fall short because the only thing that can come close to beating Superman is an inanimate piece of mineral. So lazy writers can write a Superman story pretty easily: There's a problem, Superman sets out to do the right thing, fights his way through some henchmen, meets the Boss, the Boss pulls out some kryptonite, Superman almost loses, then he doesn't. That kind of storytelling entertained me when I was a kid, and it entertains me now to a certain extent, but it doesn't make for the best fiction. No, the best fiction, I think, involves some character progression. It involves a character bettering himself in some way. Since you can't improve on perfection, starting from the premise that your protagonist is perfect will always leave something to be desired in the final work.

Compare the typical Superman story to the story of Frodo and the Ring, for example. Yes, the One Ring is something external to Frodo, but the ultimate conflict is not between the Free Peoples of Middle-Earth and Sauron's forces or between Gandalf and the Witch-king. The conflict is between Frodo and himself; the ultimate purpose of the story is to answer the question of whether Frodo has the strength--or, more accurately, whether he can find the strength--to carry the One Ring to Mount Doom and cast it into the fires there. Ultimately, Frodo failed, but he went further than anyone else could have gone, and he was brave--or naive--enough to take on a task that even Gandalf feared.

In the end, I think, Frodo is more admirable because, even though he failed, he struggled against seemingly impossible odds and came much, much closer to success than anyone could ever have reasonably expected. But, more importantly, Frodo is more admirable because he held his fate in his own hands. His success or failure depended entirely on his choices and his strength of will. It was Frodo's choice to bear the Ring that lead him to Mordor, and it was his strength of will that allowed him to resist its power for so long. Superman, on the other hand, is a prisoner of circumstances. He will invariably do what is right, but it is inevitable that one day, kryptonite will overcome him. Neither his superpowers nor his strength of will will be able to save him. In the end, Superman cannot win, regardless of how much he tries and suffers.

I had a point when I started, and I think it was something along these lines: Frodo lived in the Shire and could have ignored Sauron and the Ring. But he didn't and, instead, chose to do something extremely difficult; he chose to find within himself the power to destroy a powerful enemy. And because of that, his story is infinitely more compelling than the many mediocre Superman stories out there.

I wouldn't have made it to Mordor. I wouldn't have made it to the Minds or Moria. I probably wouldn't have even made it to Weathertop. But there was a time when Frodo wouldn't have, either.

So, on days like today, days when I feel completely worthless because of stupid things that I've brought on myself, I hope that I'll be stronger some day. But I recognize that strength isn't just something that happens--it's something you build.

My greatest weakness, as it turns out, is that I'm an idiot. And now I've got to do something about that.

6 Comments

estefanita said:

youre not an idiot. an idiot couldn't realize he was an idiot.

March 12, 2008 7:30 AM

Elise said:

You're definitely not an idiot, but aside from that, Frodo does kick Superman's ass. I'm glad you finally admitted it. ;)

March 12, 2008 10:52 AM

TheExpat said:

Estefanita's right, you aren't an idiot, but I disagree that an idiot couldn't realize his own idiocy. There are plenty of people who do dumb things or act dumb, realize what they're doing, and then keep doing the same dumb shit. These kinds of people are also idiots, though maybe of a higher order of idiocy than the unaware idiot. SuperIdiots, maybe?

March 12, 2008 10:44 PM

estefanita said:

ok so i'll revise. an idiot is someone who does not want to change their idiocy. we have all done idiotic things, realized they were idiotic and changed (hopefully). the changing part is what keeps us from becoming idiots.
i agree with the different forms of idiots, but i think your superidiots should be considered a lower order of idiocy, since they have the double idiot whammy: their initial idiot act/s, and then their second act of idiocy, deciding to remain the same...

March 13, 2008 1:09 PM

TheExpat said:

Okay estefanita, that's a great observation. From now on, I will class SuperIdiots as life-forms somewhere between natural-born idiots and, say, pancakes. Not that pancakes are bad, they're just not very smart.

March 15, 2008 3:07 AM

morenonesense said:

ok, i'll say it. you're an idiot.

March 16, 2008 8:42 PM

Leave a comment

Name

Email Address

URL

Remember personal info?

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)