Kwasu D. Tembo Among Them but Not One of Them: a Xenological Exploration of the Otherness and Power of DC Comics’ Superman

Caietele Echinox, vol. 34, 2018: Posthumanist Configurations 181

Kwasu D. Tembo Among Them but Not One of Them: A Xenological Exploration of the Otherness and Power of DC Comics’ Superman

Abstract: With a view to exploring the I. Introduction relationship between DC Comics’ Super- man’s engagement with posthumanism and hile the preceding and, most likely, science fiction, as well as posthumanism Wthe following decade will continue and planetarity, this paper will provide an to engage with the various onto-existential analysis of various xenological aspects of issues and debates surrounding the concepts of posthumanism, drawing on philosophi- the character, as an uncanny alien, in order cal, scientific, theological, anthropological, to explore a range of conclusions that can sociological, artistic, cinematic, literary and be drawn from my central hypothesis that theoretical frameworks and approaches in Superman is a character that is simultane- order to do so, the fundamental aspects of ously a representation of onto-existential DC Comics’ character Superman’s mythos familiarity as well as Otherness and power have been engaged with posthuman spec- that ultimately disrupts anthropocentric and ulation for nearly a century. With a view geocentric frames of reference. to exploring the relationship between the Keywords: Xenology; Superman; Power; character’s engagement with posthumanism Identity; Otherness. and science fiction, as well as posthumanism and planetarity, this paper will provide Kwasu D. Tembo an analysis of various xenological aspects of University of Edinburgh, Scotland the character, as an uncanny alien, in order [email protected] to explore a range of conclusions that can be drawn from my central hypothesis that Su- DOI: 10.24193/cechinox.2018.34.14 perman is character that is simultaneously a representation of onto-existential familiarity, as well as Otherness and power that ultimately disrupts anthropocentric and geocentric frames of reference. These will include providing a brief outline of contem- porary critical approaches to xenological 182 Kwasu D. Tembo speculation, so as to situate my own con- Another important term in this paper clusions about the character within a wider is “it”. Throughout this paper, I will refer stream of thought concerning onto-existen- to Superman as “it”. The convention of tial difference. I will then move on to dis- referring to the character using the pro- cuss one of the central shortcomings of the noun “he” already performs various kinds study of radical alterity, namely the prob- of reductive violence that I argue cannot lem of alien unknowability specifically, the be overlooked. “He” superimposes anthro- relationship between unknowability and pocentric codes, qualities and categories of Superman’s multiplicity of identities and being onto a being that is genetically and onto-existential instability. philosophically Other to them. As such, In science fiction studies and criti- the third-person neuter pronoun ‘it” is the cism, the term xenology refers to a hypo- most accurate and basic term with which thetical science whose goal is the study and to discuss any ontological or existential as- analysis of speculative extra-terrestrial so- pects of the character. The fact that Super- cieties as developed and inhabited by alien man is an alien is taken as a first principle life forms. As such, xenology finds its ter- here. It is an extra-terrestrial creature that restrial analogue in ethnology. Examples expresses many seemingly identical super- of xenological speculation in fiction and ficial traits with human beings that, how- literary criticism include: Fredric Jameson’s ever convincing, must not overlook the fact Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called of Superman’s essential difference from any Utopia and Other Science Fictions (2005); C. and everything human. Furthermore, “he”, J. Cherryh’s Foreigner series (1993-pres- when considered fully, only accurately re- ent); Donal Kingsbury’s The Moon Goddess fers to one third of the personae “worn” by and the Son (1986); and Ursula K. Le Guin’s “Superman/Kal-El,” namely “Clark Kent.” Planet of Exile (1966). Furthermore, relat- I have privileged the use of the pronoun ed to xenology is the term xenophilosophy, “it” in order to allow the being in question a which appears in the work of German In- greater degree of existential license, which dologist Wilhelm Halbfass. In Halbfass’s I argue better allows us to apprehend what cultural studies, his particular usage of the it is or can be without violently inscribing term xenology refers to the largely ethno- anthropocentric privileging and its various graphic study of how a culture positively or agendas onto the power it possesses and negatively defines and reacts to/against in- the Otherness that constitutes it. dividuals or groups outside, alien or Other My justification for discussing Super- to it. I have elected to use xenological spec- man by using the term “it” is due in part ulation as a strategy to explore the charac- to the underlying ethic of this thesis being ter’s diegetic power and Otherness because xenological. If, for example, I am to consid- such a strategy not only centralizes the fact er Jameson’s xenological approach to read- that Superman is an alien, but allows for a ing texts that feature alien beings seriously, fuller exploration of the tensions and in- then I think that the retention of the term teractions between extra-terrestrials and “it” is important because it highlights the human beings within the context of the fact that Superman is an alien. Regardless diegetic earths of the DC multiverse. of the methodological approach one brings A Xenological Exploration of the Otherness and Power of DC Comics’ Superman 183 to bare on the character, regardless of how in its noun form. As an adjective, the term complex or nuanced, it would not change means “stranger”, “wanderer”, and/or “ref- the fact that, diegetically speaking, the ugee”. Alternatively, in India and Europe: character is an alien. The combination of Perspectives on Their Spiritual Encounter this fact and my wish to maintain a care- (1981), Wilhelm Halbfass uses the term to ful sensitivity toward xenological apprais- describe the cultural study of ethnocentric als of Otherness would call for a strategy views held by different societies regard- that does not hem up the onto-existential ing different classes or types of foreign- complexities of the character by simply re- er. Within Halbfass’s Indological study, ferring to an alien being as “he” because it xenology refers to the ways that a given looks like a robust human man. To do so culture perceives, defines, and understands would simply be an inaccurate retention of individuals or cultures alien or Other to it. anthropocentric privileging, a privileging As such, Halbfass’ xenology is the that the central hypothesis seeks alterna- study of the various ways “self ” and “Oth- tives to. To be clear, I do not believe that er” are defined within a historical context referring to Superman as “it” objectifies of colliding cultures. According to Brian the character. On the contrary, I argue it Stableford’s Science Fact and Science Fic- draws attention to the fact that the char- tion: An Encyclopaedia (2006), xenology acter represents an interesting alternative can also be defined as “an associate concept to any human/inhuman dialectic precisely of exobiology, referring to a hypothetical because it is both in interesting and chal- science of extra-terrestrial, especially alien, lenging ways. society” with “analogical and extrapolative relationship to ethnology which is similar to that between exobiology and biology.”1 II. A Brief Outline of Xenological Similarly, Robert A. Freitas Jr.’s Xenology: Speculation An Introduction to the Scientific Study of Ex- n order to parse the concepts of Super- tra-terrestrial Life, Intelligence, and Civili- man’s disruptivity in terms of power and zation (1979) provides an exhaustive out- IOtherness xenologically, which I argue also line of the principles of xenology, including necessarily involves identity, I will open the following interests and sub-disciplines: this chapter by providing an overview of xenological speculation. The term “xenol- the history of the idea of extra-ter- ogy” has been used variably to describe restrial life; comparative planetology, and discuss the tension between concepts stars, and galaxies; xenobiology (defi- including difference, Otherness, and the nition/origin of life, exotic biochemis- interaction between the known and the tries, and possible alien bioenergetics, unknown, be it abstract or uncannily fa- biomechanics, sensations, reproduc- miliar. In A Greek-English Lexicon (1968), tion, and intelligence); extra-terrestrial Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott civilizations (energy sources, biotech- state that the terms “xenology” derives nology, interstellar travel, alien weap- from the Greek word xenos, meaning “for- ons, planetary and stellar engineering, eign”, “alien”, “strange”, and/or “unusual” xenosociology, and extra-terrestrial 184 Kwasu D. Tembo

governments and culture); interstellar collaborative outcomes for humanity fol- communication techniques; and the lowing such contacts. Harrison and Dick sociology, legal issues, and appropri- go as far as to suggest that such encounters ate interaction protocols pertaining to might result in an advanced extra-terrestri- First Contact.2 al civilization imparting equally advanced knowledge to humankind in areas cur- There are numerous other speculative rently inaccessible to our species. In their models that address the religious, scientif- paper “Contact: Long-Term Implication ic, cultural, legal, and ecological outcomes for Humanity” (2000), they speculate that of making contact with extra- terrestrials such areas could include T.O.E (the theory that are not, strictly speaking, defined as of everything), faster-than-light travel, and xenology, but are xenological in praxis. For the successful and safe manipulation of example, Albert A. Harrison’s “Fear, Pan- dark matter. Similarly, Allen Tough’s 1986 demonium, Equanimity and Delight: Hu- essay “What Role Will Extra-terrestrials man Responses to Extra-terrestrial Life” Play in Humanity’s Future?” posits that (2011) examines a wide range of possible extra-terrestrials interceding in human af- contact scenarios, including the interaction fairs might do so to prevent humanity from between extra-terrestrial and terrestrial being destroyed by catastrophe and extinc- civilizations based on mutual advancement, tion-level events such as nuclear war or as- to the total subjugation of humanity. Other teroid impacts; offering advice to humanity scholars engaging in xenological specula- and its leaders as to how to avoid conflict tion suggest that such polarized scenarios and potential destruction, albeit dependent depend on the level of aggression displayed on the widespread consent of humanity; or toward humanity by alien species/civiliza- forcibly aiding humanity to avoid destruc- tions, such as James W. Deardorff ’s “Pos- tion against its will. However, in Tough’s sible Extra-terrestrial Strategy for Earth” text When SETI Succeeds: The Impact of (1986), the nature of extra-terrestrial ethics, High- Information Contact (2000), such an such as Seth D. Baum’s “Universalist Eth- encounter with a highly morally, ethically ics in Extra-terrestrial Encounter” (2010), and technologically advanced extra-terres- and the biological compatibility between trial species, regardless of how collabora- extra-terrestrials and human beings, such tive or co-operative, is speculated to po- as Steven Dick’s “Extra-terrestrials and tentially lead to an atrophy of humanity’s Objective Knowledge” (2000), in which he sense of achievement within the context of argues that the biological constituents for its own history. the encountering species’ faculties of data Conversely, other scholars and sci- processing, data delivery, and comprehen- entists have posited scenarios in which sion would determine the nature and rate the nature of the encounter is hostile. In of said encounter. Michiu Kaku’s 2009 Physics of the Impos- Some of the scenarios developed sible: A Scientific Exploration into the World by cognitive psychologists, sociologists, of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and physicists, astronomers, and futurists Time Travel as well as in Geoff Boucher’s predict, broadly speaking, positive and 2012 article for Los Angeles Times Hero A Xenological Exploration of the Otherness and Power of DC Comics’ Superman 185

Complex titled “‘Alien Encounters’: A Few of the Future (2005), which is at the core Sage (and Sagan) Thoughts on Invasion,” of xenological speculation, simultaneous- both texts posit that any extra-terrestrial ly propels and undermines xenological species able to safely locate and navigate inquiry itself. Essentially, “The Unknow- to Earth would be able to easily destroy ability Thesis” concerns the content and human civilization. Other contact scenario limits of representation of alien otherness. models and speculative frameworks focus While Jameson directs his analysis of the on a specific area of human civilization that problem of radical Otherness in terms of would be effected by an encounter with an unknowability primarily toward Stanislaw extra-terrestrial species/civilization. These Lem’s sentient “ocean”-being in Solaris include theology, such as Ted Peters’ es- (1961), his discussion of “First Contact” say “The Implications of the Discovery of with alien beings and the onto-existential Extra-terrestrial Life for Religion” (2011); and epistemological limits of subsequent and the possibility of re-emerging or alto- human attempts to understand it also re- gether new political power struggles with- lates to Superman as a science fictional in national and international governing representation of alien Otherness. As such, bodies as speculated by Michael A. G. Mi- the ethic of xenology has no recourse but chaud in Contact with Alien Civilizations: to assume that Terran science has some Our Hopes and Fears about Encountering purchase, however small, on basic uni- Extra-terrestrials (2007). versal principles and proceed accordingly. According to Freitas Jr., xenology With that in mind, I have chosen to refer is both a composite and speculative ana- to the term and its substantive meanings, lytical framework. It incorporates various which essentially all refer to Otherness and terrestrial scientific and theoretical con- difference, as a means of highlighting the cepts, praxes, and disciplines ranging from thematic and narratological importance of semiology to ethnography, cosmology to Superman’s Otherness within the context fashion, theoretical physics to law. Freitas of the character’s diegetic mythos and its Jr. presents the various scientific and phil- representation of the interaction between osophical problems, questions and theories human and non-human beings. inherent to xenological thinking in an ac- The problem of unknowability is pri- cessible and thought-provoking manner. marily twofold. Firstly, humanity has not That said, the text’s inability to answer the encountered extra-terrestrials extradieget- very same questions it raises is testament to ically, meaning that Otherness manifest in the implicit problem of the concept of rad- the idea of alien life-forms remains radically ical Otherness. For all Freitas Jr.’s thorough unknown. Secondly, despite the wide range research and nuanced application thereof of extra-terrestrials diegetically represent- to questions and ideas of radical Other- ed in science fiction, regardless of how ness, the conclusions he draws in many, uncanny or abstract, human conceptions if not all of his text’s twenty-seven chap- of “alienness” are always-already reducible ters, are speculative. In other words, what to anthropic frames of reference, and are Fredric Jameson calls “The Unknowability always-already portrayed through funda- Thesis” in chapter 8 of his text Archaeology mentally anthropic systems of thought and 186 Kwasu D. Tembo action. Similarly, Stableford comments on humanity’s fears and desires concerning the underlying anthropocentrism of xeno- power, powerlessness and onto-existential logical inquiry, stating that freedom in terms of the complex and myr- iad potentials of non-human being. On the ethnological perspectives took over other hand, xenological theories concern- from theological ones in the further ing Other modes of being are limited to extrapolation of long-standing dis- an invariably human experience of being. cussions of the plurality of worlds, re- There is no alien lexicon through which to configuring the notion of the inhab- think or even imagine the onto-existential itants of other worlds as “alternative experience of being Other. In short, the humankinds”. In a sense, the move constituent categories typically referred to is an extrapolation of the generaliz- in the understanding of terrestrial forms of ing impulse of anthropology, viewing life named by Freitas Jr. – growth, feeding/ cultural development as a universal metabolism, motility, irritability, reproduc- phenomenon of which the currently tion, adaptation, and evolution – are ter- available examples happen to be hu- restrial concepts of life. While characters man ones.3 like Superman expresses some but not all of the above signs-of-life, said categories of Jameson also cautions against xenol- terrestrial being are too provincial to use ogy’s latent predisposition toward anthro- as definitive criteria for assessing the Oth- pocentrism in Archaeology of the Future erness of a Kryptonian. As a fictional rep- (2005). Freitas Jr. and Jameson both state, resentation of alien Otherness, the charac- implicitly and explicitly, that the idea of ter Superman attests to and demonstrates the intercession of an alien being into a these limits while, ironically, gesturing be- human history necessitates, even on a ru- yond them. Superman, therefore, occupies dimentary basis, the production of new a liminal space between a representation qualities, new ways of perceiving and new of self (human being) and Other (alien). ways of being in ways that do not, in the Despite its limits, xenology offers helpful attempt to produce descriptions, concepts, ways of beginning to re-asses the character or symbols for these new qualities of being, not only as a mild-mannered reporter, or simply reconfigure terrestrial concepts in small-town farmboy from Smallville, but alternative combinations in order to signify as what the character is before or beneath, for life-forms that originate outside their namely an uncanny alien being. frame of reference. Jameson also refers to this representa- On the one hand, the concept of a tional problem as the “Chimera problem,” radically different mode of life that does which refers to whether or not it is possi- not inextricably refer to terrestrial spaces, ble for human beings as they currently are praxes and histories in any way is a scien- to “imagine anything that is not already tifically, philosophically, aesthetically and [...] derived from sensory knowledge (and narratologically fascinating and attractive a sensory knowledge which is that of our idea. Such hypothetical and radically Oth- own ordinary human body and world).”4 er modes of being simultaneously speak to Jameson offers two possible outcomes A Xenological Exploration of the Otherness and Power of DC Comics’ Superman 187 regarding the Chimera problem. First, the approach. Extrope or Extropian(ism) re- Chimera, “the allegedly new thing, will be fers to a set of scientific and ethical prin- an ingeniously cobbled together object in ciples which focus on an approach to life which secondary features of our own world that seeks to improve the human condition are primary in the new one.” Second, that through the careful and ethical application “the new object will be pseudo-sensory of scientific and technological means. The alone, and in reality put together out of extropian ethic is predicated on a tech- so many abstract intellectual semes which nological constituent whereby extropian are somehow able to pass themselves off as optimism and technocentric ethic suggest sensory.”5 As such, the best albeit unavail- that the accelerated self-transformation of able solution to the Chimera problem, and humanity to posthumanity will not only xenology by extension, is an alien lexicon. be technologically possible, but that it is a Whether or not such a solution is feasible, telos to be actively and joyously pursued. the latent disruption of terrestrial lexical “Posthuman” is a term used by transhu- systems by the onto-existential complexi- manists to refer to what humanity could ties of non-human life-forms calls to mind become if it were to succeed in using tech- the necessity of new ways of speaking, con- nology, hardware (for faster more durable ceptualizing, and symbolizing. Based on bodies) and wetware (for improved psy- the idea of the interaction between alien cho-emotional functions, including the life-forms with one another, this process transfer of consciousness between bodies), of radical re-imagination applies not only to overcome the limitations of the human to the thing perceived (the Other), but the condition. perceiver (human beings) as well. As with xenology, there is an admit- This idea, inherent in the Otherness tedly speculative aspect to this approach of characters like Superman, is daunting, due to the fact that what a posthuman exciting, and terrible because it diegetically might be, do, or think is, as yet, unknown presents radical socio-economic, biologi- to modern science in any comprehensive cal, scientific, and philosophical implica- way. That said, within the broad extropian tions that aid in speculating on alternative ethos, the concept of “posthuman” can be ways of extradiegetic being. Though the contrasted with “human.” As such, post- problem of diegetically representing the humans could be described, broadly, as hu- Other in the form of alien life-forms pres- man beings, who through the ethical appli- ents seemingly insuperable conundrums, cation of science and technology, would be such attempts also present the opportunity able to overcome biological, neurological, “to be able to imagine a new [quality of be- and psychological imperatives that devel- ing, which] is allegorical of the possibility oped over thousands of years of evolution- of imagining a whole new social world.”6 ary processes. As such, posthumans would, In terms of my chosen method, when speculatively, be able to configure all as- discussing Superman in terms of radical pects of their onto-existential conditions, onto-existential difference or Otherness, from the nature of their physical form it would seem that an appropriate strate- and its function, including aging and per- gy would be an extropian or transhumanist haps even death, their psycho-emotional 188 Kwasu D. Tembo responses to phenomena and stimuli, and by human engineering. However, being cognitive faculties including data process- that the character is a Kryptonian, I have ing and transmission that exceed human chosen to discuss the Otherness of Kryp- models heretofore experienced and under- tonians as presented in the DC Comics stood. As such, transhumanists, extropians hyperdiegesis by referring to xenological and futurists posit that genetic engineer- speculation because, though flawed, xe- ing, neural-computer integration, biomed- nology attempts to maintain a sensitivity icine and nanobiotechnology, regenerative toward the onto-existential Otherness of medicine, and the cognitive sciences will be non-human beings, and is therefore helpful some of the techno-biological approaches in providing a basic speculative framework instrumental in achieving the aforemen- through which to make observations about tioned transhumanist goals. Such thinkers said characters, as well as discuss them. and texts in the field include, but are not limited to, Max More (Principles of Extropy III. Kryptonian Xenology Version 3.11, 2003 and Extropy: The Jour- nal of Transhumanist Thought, 1990); Teil- ny xenological exploration of Super- hard de Chardin (The Future of Man, 1959); man as a Kryptonian must contex- FM-2030, born Fereidoun M. Esfandiary tualizeA the historical representation if the (Woman, Year 2000, 1972); Robert Ettinger character’s homeworld, namely Krypton (Man into Superman, 1972); Damien Brod- itself. Chris Roberson’s “Jewel Mountains erick (The Judas Mandala, 1982); Natasha and Fire Falls: The Lost World of Kryp- Vita-More (“TransArt,” 1982); Robert ton” appearing in The Man from Krypton: A Pepperell (Post-Human Condition, 1997); Closer Look at Superman, edited by Glenn and Ray Kurzweil (Human 2.0, 2003) Yeffeth (2005), offers a helpful starting One of the primary reasons transhu- point. Before John Byrne and Mike Mi- manist and extropian models of speculat- gnola’s Superman: World of Krypton (2008), ing on radical onto-existential difference The Krypton Chronicles Vol. 1, No. 1-3 are insufficient when considering the Oth- (September-November 1981), written by erness of an alien being, albeit fictional, is E. Nelson Bridwell, illustrated by Curt based on the fact that transhumanism and Swan, like other noteworthy examples of extropianism rely on 1) an anthropic “base” world-building including Frank Herbert’s or raw material to be 2) technologically Dune (1965), rigorously and methodical- transmuted, developed, or altered. Super- ly detailed the diegetic representation of man, as a fictive representation of alien Kryptonain culture and history within the Otherness within the context of the char- Superman mythos. This included appen- acter’s diegetic mythos, is 1) biologically dices detailing glossaries of Kryptonian and, therefore, onto-existentially non-hu- words and phrases, maps of the planet, man and 2) does not require technologi- and an annotated family tree of the House cal power in order to exhibit what diegetic of El. The original narrative and aesthet- humans would regard as psycho-physical ic representation of the planet Krypton abilities or powers far beyond not only any functioned incidentally in the character’s human body, but any machine fashioned burgeoning mythos. It was essentially little A Xenological Exploration of the Otherness and Power of DC Comics’ Superman 189 more than an aesthetic footnote or space notion of a Kryptonian “super-race” wherein which the diegetic details of Jor goes away for good (perhaps due to and Lara-El’s inability to prevent the cat- Wertham’s attacks?) and is replaced, aclysmic destruction of their world and for the first time, by another explana- the launching of their offspring Kal-El to- tion. As Superman explains to Super- ward the earths of the DC multiverse took girl (in Action Comics #252, her debut), place. As a place that simply existed to be their powers now derive partly from destroyed in order to facilitate the genesis Earth’s lesser gravity and partly from of the character’s terrestrial adventures, “ultra solar rays that penetrate the Siegel and Shuster’s depiction of the plan- Earth day and night”. The idea that et, a distant green orb suspended in the a yellow sun gives superpowers (and blackness of intergalactic space, showed that a red one takes them away) was nothing of the planet’s history, science or a late development in Superman’s his- culture, let alone topography or biospheres. tory, but one that has remained with This sparsity of detail endured for two de- him ever since – even as many other cades following the planet’s original debut Weisinger-era innovations have flut- in Action Comics No. 1 (1938) due in large tered in and out of continuity. This part to the numerous non-cohesive nar- strange, detailed, pseudo-scientific rative and aesthetic representations of the apportioning of powers – the need to planet by DC’s various artist/writer teams pore over and explain, to take nothing that followed. However, a small number of as read – is a major theme of Weising- creators, under the guidance of Weisinger’s er-era Superman.7 strong editorial vision that promoted con- sistency and invention regarding the di- Much like the development of Super- egetic representation of Superman’s home man itself over the character’s publication world, resulted in the broad codification history, the narrative and aesthetic devel- of the fictional planet’s history, culture, opment of the character’s home world can language, geography, science and religion. be broadly divided into three stages rang- This included the variegated approach to ing from 1934 to 1950, 1950 to 1970, and, the provenance of Superman’s powers and lastly, 1970 to 1985. The first stage was abilities. As Glen Weldon notes in Super- marked by simplistic and uncoordinated man: The Unauthorized Biography(2013), development of the fictional planet, primarily at the hands of Superman’s creators For thirty-two years, the comics had Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. The second stuck with Siegel and Shuster’s origi- stage was marked by Weisinger’s elabora- nal explanation that Superman’s abil- tive, inventive and expansive additions to ities were due to his status as a mem- the character’s entire mythos. The third ber of Krypton’s “super-race” of beings stage can be regarded as a period of refine- capable of leaping tall buildings and ment, codification and delimitation. learning calculus while still in the Throughout the first decades featur- nursery – and to Earth’s lesser gravity. ing the planet Krypton in print, “Kryp- Yet in Action #262 (March, 1960), the ton is presented in only the most cursory 190 Kwasu D. Tembo fashion, with contradictory details. The after millions of years, to physical perfec- reader is given very little sense of it as a liv- tion. The smaller size of our planet, with ing planet with a culture of its own.”8 The its slighter gravity pull, assists Superman’s original appearance of Krypton occurred in tremendous muscles in the performance the Superman newspaper strips drawn and of miraculous feats of strength.”10 Though illustrated by Siegel and Shuster in 1934 crude, this explanation offered a first step that never saw publication in their original in developing a xenological profile of the form. In the twelve-part newspaper strips fictional Kryptonian species. the duo originally intended to publish, the In 1945, the character’s origins were reader is given not only interesting insights retold in the debut issue of Superboy ap- into the origins of the character, but of its pearing in More Fun Comics Vol. 1, No. home world also. Of said twelve strips, ten 101. In this text, the xenological profile were concerned with the destruction of of Krypton was re-assessed. While Kryp- Krypton, as well as introducing the read- ton remained a technocratic planet whose er to Superman’s fictional forebears Jor-El, social and physical infrastructures were preeminent scientist of Kandor (Krypton’s predicated on advanced technology, it capital city), and Lara-El, its spouse. was no longer inhabited by a race of su- Originally, the xenological elements perbeings, but rather by beings seemingly of the Kryptonian species were simply indistinguishable from terrestrial humans. hyperextensions of human faculties, as This marks another important aspect of the can be noted in the fact that Siegel and xenological profile of the Kryptonian spe- Shuster treated Krypton as a world ruled cies; namely, that “all of Superman’s abil- by hyper-evolved “super-men.”9 This un- ities now stem from the fact that he is a published miniseries would later be refor- Kryptonian on Earth, and not because all matted as a comic strip in which the nature Kryptonians had been supermen.”11 and history of the planet Krypton were This problem of the unknowability, reduced to a single page which focused or at least undecidability, concerning Su- on the description of Kal-El’s powers in perman’s xenological onto-existentialism a diegetic terrestrial environment that has also been acknowledged by writers and broadly reflected extradiegetic socio-po- illustrators of the character. According to litical, cultural and historical reality. Nei- Will Murray article “Superman’s Editor ther the last days of Krypton, nor Jor or Mort Weisinger” re-printed in Michael Lara-El were mentioned. Krypton would Eury’s The Krypton Companion(2006), only be properly named in 1939 following the publication of Action Comics No. 1. In The Space Race of the late 1950s and Superman Vol. 1, No. 1 (1939), the reader is ‘60s also forced Weisinger to stay his also given a diegetic explanation of the on- toes with kids who liked fantasy, but tological effects of the differences between demanded a recognizable dose of real- Kryptonian and terrestrial climates on ism mixed in. Students at MIT mon- Kryptonian physique. According to Siegel, itored the feature for violations of the “Superman came to Earth from the planet laws of physics. When hundreds of Krypton, whose inhabitants had evolved, letters complained about Superman A Xenological Exploration of the Otherness and Power of DC Comics’ Superman 191

taking Lois Lane into outer space discovering its technology and agriculture, without the benefit of a pressure suit, thereby presenting the reader with a clearer Weisinger decreed that from that point example of the socio-culture and history of on, Superman had to place her in a the fictional planet. Another fuller explo- NASA-style astronaut garb... Perhaps ration would emerge through the publica- most significantly, Mort Weisinger tion of Action Comics Vol. 1, No. 252 (May, reinvented the Man of Steel for this 1959) the following year. In the story, Su- increasingly sophisticated audience. perman accidentally travels back in time to “Why Should Superman fly?” he once a pre-cataclysmic Krypton. While there, asked rhetorically. “So he came from the character is mistaken for an extra in another planet and there’s a difference a science fiction film being shot, meets its in gravity. Why should he be able to forbears Jor and Lara-El, witnesses their fly? Why should he have X-ray vision? marriage, and even falls in love with the It’s contrary to science and reason. I Kryptonian actress Lyla Lerrol. This story originated the concept that in a world added another element to the xenological circling a yellow sun his powers are profile of the Kryptonian species in that multiplied, and that yellow sun gave it contrasted Krypton’s red sun to earth’s him these abilities. There are things yellow sun, identifying this difference as that originators of Superman didn’t the source of the character’s powers on a figure out; they gave us this fabulous diegetic earth, albeit without providing a character without explaining why all scientific, or even pseudo-scientific, -ex his fabulous attributes existed.”12 planation for the character’s abilities from that point to its present incarnation. In Su- The second stage of the narrative and perman Vol. 1, No. 141 (November, 1960), aesthetic development of Krypton in print Krypton’s geography was named, introduc- came at the hands of Jerry Siegel and Mort ing the reader to such fictional xenogeo- Weisinger, most notably in Action Comics graphic locations as pre-cataclysmic Kryp- Vol. 1, No. 242 (July, 1958). The narrative ton’s Rainbow Canyon, Jewel Mountains, introduced the technological supervillain Hall of Worlds, Gold Volcano and Meteor Brainiac into the character’s mythos. As Valley. By 1961, Superman Vol.1, No. 146 a collector, Brainiac’s diegetic telos is to ( July, 1961) coalesced these disparate el- travel throughout the universe discovering ements into the first broadly cohesive xe- alien worlds and civilizations and subse- nological profile of the Kryptonian species. quently using its advanced technology to Despite the notion of Krypton being a fic- shrink their premier cities, subsequently tional world located light-years away from storing them in what appear to be clear a diegetic earth, this text presented Kryp- bell jars. In the text, Brainiac attempts to tonians as reterritorialized middle-class shrink Paris and other world capitals on Americans living in a technological utopia that story’s earth. Infiltrating the villain’s featuring weather control towers, met- spacecraft, Superman discovers the bottled al-eaters and metal maids. city of Kandor. The character is able to tour The third stage of Krypton’s dieget- the once capital city of its bygone world, ic narrative and aesthetic development 192 Kwasu D. Tembo occurred under the editorship of Julius weddings, technology, and helial worship Schwartz, who took up the position fol- of Rao, their sun and premier deity. lowing the resignation of Weisinger in 1970. With the diligent historiograph- IV. Superman, Xenological ical study of the preceding portrayals of Krypton, writers E. Nelson Bridwell, Cary Unknowability and Tridentity Bates, Elliot S. Maggin, Marv Wolfman, espite any moral or ethical consid- and Dennis O’Neil used a series of stories erations of what or who Superman published under the title “The Fabulous Dis diegetically, such considerations must World of Krypton” that ran throughout also give an account of the character’s xe- the early 1970s Superman titles to codify noonto-existentialism that gestures be- the Kryptonian mythos. These stories read yond the anthropocentrically normative like vignettes, each using only a few pages method artists and writers have used to to highlight and explore a specific aspect represent the character. This task is not al- of Kryptonian culture and history. Such together straightforward. The determina- aspects include the planet’s colonization by tion of what the character is or might be two lost space travelers named Kryp and is, bio-physically, not entirely within the Tonn, their descendants’ barbarity and civil purview of diegetic Terran science. How war, and their slow re-development toward can any Terran or extra-terrestrial, extradi- technological superiority. These stories also egetic or diegetic, assume that based on featured hyperdiegetic legends about the its physiological similarities to the human planet’s pre-cataclysmic heroes including species, the character’s body produces some Hex-Le and Rik-Ar, a Spartacus-esque of the non-physical phenomena common leader of a slave rebellion against a despot to human beings as well? Does Superman named Taka-Ne. Other narratives focused dream, or fantasize? Does Superman have on Superman’s forebears more closely, de- an identical emotional spectrum to human tailing the contents of Jor-El’s personal di- beings and if not, is the character able to aries, for example. As such, “The Fabulous feel, dream, or imagine in ways human be- World of Krypton” miniseries helped distill ings cannot? Initially, these questions and a clear diegetic vision of the alien world of considerations might appear unnecessarily Krypton. It is clear that Byrne and Migno- painstaking. However, I argue that these la’s representation of Krypton in Super- aspects of the character’s diegetic being man: The World of Krypton(2008) is highly are a fundamental part of its Otherness indebted to the scholastic intrepidity of and the Otherness of its body. Its uncan- Bridwell, which subsequently allowed the ny similarity to human beings invites the team to draw on Bridwell’s accumulation reader’s inter-diegetic comparison of the of detailed aspects of Kryptonian culture differences between fictional Kryptonians’ and history, including but not limited to bodies and the lives of those bodies against the months of the Kryptonian calendar, both extradiegetic and diegetic represen- its units of measurement including time, tations of human bodies and their lives. the titles and forms of social address, de- This conscious or unconscious compara- portment and decorum, funerary customs, tive process is, by definition, xenological A Xenological Exploration of the Otherness and Power of DC Comics’ Superman 193 in that a human being compares her/his the model of a norm even there where it human being to the being of an alien, in is unthinkable.”13 As such, the alien body, Superman’s case, a Kryptonian. The char- as represented by the character, is a space acter’s body’s uncanny likeness to that of a which is underpinned by a tension between human male who engaged in regular phys- the representable and the unrepresentable. ical exercise, makes the task of imaging the With Superman, nature of Superman’s alien body somewhat easier. This is to say that it is not so high- if we emphasize the latter side of the ly abstract – like the “oceanic” organism of tension, we then begin to tilt back to- Stanislaw Lem’s Solaris, for example – so as wards the notion that genuine differ- to be mystified in ostensibly epistemic and ence, genuine alienness or otherness, ontic riddles. is impossible and unachievable, and Instead, with Superman, the reader is that even there where it seems to have given an imagining of an alien body, a phy- been successfully represented, in real- sique of the Other, that is an uncanny re- ity we find the mere structural play of flection of an extradiegetic human body. Its purely human themes and topics.14 anthropomorphism, in this sense, is func- tionalist in so far as it facilitates the reader’s As stated above, Jameson’s configura- identification with it, making the narrative tion of the Chimera problem is one of per- function in its dissemination of the various ception. That is, how a human being might themes associated with Superman, from regard an alien in a way that was faithful solitude to heroism. Essentially, this an- to the onto-existential reality of said being, thropomorphism is a method of contextu- diegetic or otherwise. alizing and domesticating or terraforming With Superman, I argue that the the Otherness of the alien body through Chimera problem manifests itself in terms the actual conceptualization and aesthet- of the tensions between identity, power ic representation of the alien body itself. and Otherness, and the character’s three Here terraforming refers to the theoretical personas, namely “Kal-El of Krypton,” process whereby typically inhospitable ex- “Clark Kent of Smallville,” and “Superman tra-terrestrial geologies, atmospheres, to- of Earth,” which I refer to collectively as pographies, or ecologies of planets, moons, the character’s “tridentity.” While it may or other bodies are made to conform to seem appropriate to regard any identarian terrestrial standards as dictated by Earth’s tension within the character in terms of a biosphere and therefore habitable. How- dualism between “Clark Kent” and “Su- ever, the character consistently embodies perman,” I argue that the character’s on- a sense of anthropomorphic privileging to-existential configuration is triangular as that invites the reader to assume that the opposed to binary. Looking at Superman’s character is at all understandable because tridentity more closely, I propose that “Su- it resembles her or him. Superman, as an perman” is a sign that refers to one third aesthetic and narratological representation of a fractured and displaced entity. Beside, of Otherness therefore fulfills a “necessar- within, underneath, or above Superman are ily normative [function], and reestablishes also “Clark Kent” and “Kal-El.” These three 194 Kwasu D. Tembo primary signs refer to attributes, character- istics and modes of being of an entity of power and Otherness commonly referred to “Superman” within the character’s diegetic mythos. While such an observation may seem overly pedantic, sensitivity to the fractured nature of the character is essential in reading it xenologically, as well as reading the nature of its power xenologically also. The fact that the signs “Super- man,” “Clark Kent,” and “Kal-El” are put in place of, over, under, or alongside one another in the place of the thing itself, re- flects how the character’s power and Oth- erness defer all the above-mentioned signs in any categorical or definitive way.

V. Unknowability, Onto-Existential Flux, and Action Comics No. 1 Fig. a: taken from Action Comics No. 1 (1938) eing that the character is, as Kal-El, written by Jerry Siegel, illustrated by Joe Shuster Clark Kent, and Superman, an on- Bto-existential multiplicity, I argue that a symbol or series of symbols to completely the character is always-already elsewhere represent the fundamentally alien power of in an onto-existential sense: its being al- its Otherness within the diegetic context ways-already troubles the anthropocentric of the world the narrative establishes. aspects of its appearance. To show this, I If one considers the cover of Action will analyze the concept of speed in Action No. 1 (see Figure a above), one notices that Comics No. 1, referring to Grant Morri- there are no nationalistic symbols or pal- son’s analysis of this text in Supergods: Our pable political signifiers to identify the de- World in the Age of the Superhero (2011), to picted figure as for or against any ideology argue that the speed of the action in Ac- of any kind. The ambiguity of the figures tion No. 1 has more than just narratologi- in both the background and foreground, cal consequences. It also problematizes the their socio-economic class and/or moral existential categories of identity and telos alignments further compound the inde- with regard to Superman. I will demon- terminateness of the depicted figure’s ba- strate how this phenomenon is exempli- sic narrative, affiliations (if any at all), and fied in the character’s debut on the cover its basic raison d’etre. The focus of Shus- of Action Comics No. 1. This cover presents ter’s composition is entirely on this being, a depiction of power that disrupts, defers which simultaneously raises and refuses to and breaks through all attempts at estab- answer the mystery of who or what it is, or lishing an essential, totalizing signification, why it is doing what it is doing. What is A Xenological Exploration of the Otherness and Power of DC Comics’ Superman 195 apparent is the power of this creature, mov- suggests that said figure is also a creature ing from left to right through the image’s of speed. This combination of power and equator, leaving a wake of destruction and speed breaks through and disrupts narra- hysterical Munchean dread that cannot be tological stability whereby the fundamen- totally silenced by the muteness of the metal aspects of a sequential narrative are dium. It looks like a man, with black hair undermined while, paradoxically, being on a head with all the familiar features on presented in sequential form. This inno- a body that is uncannily similar to that of a vative storytelling technique creates an at- robust human man. It wears a form-fitting mosphere of charged kinematics in which blue and red costume where an escutcheon progression and regression occur simulta- rests on its chest within which sits a lonely neously. In terms of being, and the static- yet proud “S,” a red charge on an undivided ity reductive definitions of being rely on, aureate field. The use of heraldic terminol- the absolutist claim to an inextricable link ogy here is meant to draw attention to how between Superman and moral ideology or little the reader actually knows about the nationalistic symbolism is effectively out- destructive figure depicted at this point. run by what is actually depicted. Action No. While later in its mythos, it becomes 1 suggests that the only absolutism that clear that there is a degree of synchronici- can be reliably referred to regarding the ty between the use and meaning of Kryp- character is the supremacy of the Othering tonian and terrestrial heraldic devices, in power of its body. Compared to the rela- the scene of its debut, the meaning of its tionship between Superman and its power, arms, its parentage, house, and purpose re- other considerations become increasingly main inconclusive. This sense of mystery superfluous as this aspect of the character, permeating its spectacular display of pow- encoded in the aesthetics of both cover er further compounds the sensationalism and subsequent text, though narratolog- of what it is doing, weightlessly lifting a ically fragmented, is still nevertheless vi- green vehicle above its head, on its toes, as sually succinct. This is noteworthy because if it were about to take flight despite the the cover of Action No. 1 already depicts a weight. mode of being that intimates an indepen- The image is ambiguous due to its dence from nationalism or moral ideology, lack of narratological context. As Morrison a force of greater significance in relation to points out, “the cover image is a snapshot the character’s being, namely both its Oth- from the climax of the story [the reader] erness, and the power thereof. is yet to see,” thus creating an effect where From the cover, “a freeze-frame of “by the time the world catches up to Su- frantic action,” up until Superman trans- perman, [it is] concluding an adventure forms into Clark Kent, “Superman is in [the reader has] already missed.”15 Ex- constant motion.”16 Siegel abandons con- panding on Morrison’s insight, the charac- ventional linear story setups of typical acter has, in this sense, always-already outrun tion stories of the period in favor of a more itself as well as the reader’s understanding startling, dislocated narratological style. of it. While the cover of the comic book For example, the first panel of the narrative primarily depicts an entity of power, it also does not labor itself with an explication of 196 Kwasu D. Tembo the intricacies of moral, ideological, or na- “S”: Consider the “S.” Serpent swirl tionalistic categorizations of the character of the alphabet set. More so than any as a means of apprehending or endorsing other Roman letter... the “S” wields its actions. Rather, the action proceeds surprising powers. Like the ability from the exiguous reasoning that “ear- to plural. It can make a “word” into ly Clark decided he must turn his titanic “words.” Turn an isolated tragedy... strength into channels that would benefit into an epidemic. Multiply a symbol mankind,” leaving out fundamental ques- into symbols at the drop of a conso- tions such as “why?,” “under whose au- nant. The “S” can also possess. Take thority or prompting?,” “in what theatre or what it wants through association. It sphere?,” “to what degree?,” and “in what can turn “Father Time”... into “Fa- ways, exactly?” in a way that foregrounds ther’s Time.” A single letter that can the actions of the figure in question.17 This literally steal time. Making many out palpable sense of propulsion, speed, and of one. Owning what it touches.19 power presents itself both visually and linguistically. This is immediately appar- This combination of speed and pow- ent as, by the tenth panel, the pace of the er points to one conclusion: the adopted narrative in which the reader’s attempts to morals and ethics of this so-called pro- follow Superman continues to accelerate is tector are already surpassed by something represented by the caption box of page two more elemental to it namely, the power of that reads, “[a] tireless figure races thru the its body. In Action No. 1, the character is night seconds count... delay means forfeit introduced as a being whose nature, power, of an innocent life.”18 The errors of spell- actions, and motive have outrun the reading and punctuation suggest that Super- er’s comprehension.20 man is propelling through the narrative, The image-text experience ofAction from panel to panel, at a speed greater than No. 1 evokes a sense of being privy to an the speed required to document its move- aesthetic loop whereby the real-time visu- ment, the speed of language to record it, alization and comprehension of the charac- and the speed of thought to comprehend ter’s actions lay beyond the ability of human it. It is as if both the reader and the writ- faculties. In terms of an ontological reading er are attempting to, but just barely, keep of Superman, Action No. 1 presents prob- apace with Superman and the unidentified lems that include the highly theoretical gagged and bound blonde woman under its consideration of whether the human beings arm. At this point in the narrative, the “S” of the DC Multiverse are or have ever been on its chest, whose shape is also shown to able to not only apprehend, but experience mutate, could signify anything from Savior, Superman in any kind of total way. More- Subverter, Survivor, to Subject. over, because of its power, the fact that This relationship between the charac- Superman is able to manipulate diegetic ter’s onto-existential instability and time space-time suggests that time and space is similarly, albeit aphoristically, expressed cannot be relied on as absolute grounds for in Steven T. Seagle’s It’s a Bird... (2004), experiencing or encountering Superman. where Seagle contemplates the “S”, stating: However, within the context of Action No. A Xenological Exploration of the Otherness and Power of DC Comics’ Superman 197

1, there simply is no time to consider these and other complex physical and philosophical questions which are, paradoxically, both evoked and deferred by the narrative and aesthetics of the comic itself. The reader is, keep in mind, attempting to catch up to the cover, to comprehend the who, what, where, how, and why of the figure depicted before the narrative commences, but narratologically after the narrative has already con- cluded. By the eleventh panel on page two, Superman arrives at the Governor’s estate. There is no internal monologue, no thought bubbles, nor speech balloons to suggest any verbal or thought exchanges between either Superman and itselves, Superman and the bound and gagged blonde woman whom it is carrying and the reader, or Superman with the reader. The overall sense of ambiguity is maintained by the speed at which Fig. b: taken from Action Comics No. 1 (1938) the narrative simultaneously progresses and written by Jerry Siegel, illustrated by Joe Shuster regresses. At this early point of tension in the narrative’s action, the reader cannot what makes Action No. 1 such a brilliant conclusively declare why Superman is do- debut for this being whose onto-existential ing what it is doing, where it is doing what movement and flux would later ossify into it is doing, to or for whom it is doing what a modern archetype, a genre, and a mod- it is doing, when it is doing what it is doing, ern folklore figure because it emphasizes an or, according the basic laws of extradiegetic easily overlooked but nevertheless vital fact: physics, how it is doing what it is doing. In both the character’s thematic and aesthetic addition, it is not clear whether Superman origin are essentially unstable. is saving or abducting the aforementioned Vis-à-vis Action No. 1, the reader woman. As such, the stability and staticity is essentially experiencing the residue of required to know Superman are constant- Superman’s actions, as if Siegel and Shus- ly deferred, disrupted, and delayed by the ter’ aesthetics had created a new form of character’s being, of which speed and power long-exposure photography for superbe- 21 are essential aspects. Interestingly however, ings. Through the blurred lines of a being the cover of Action No. 1 is the climax of the that is constantly in motion in onto-existen- story and depicts the climactic event, which tial terms something essential remains. The appears on the last page, on the cover, si- only constant in the incomplete equation multaneously before and after the story has of the reader’s disjointed comprehension of transpired (see Figure b above). This sense the character is the potency of Superman’s of temporal and narratological volatility is speed and power. This irreducible aspect of 198 Kwasu D. Tembo the character’s being is disruptive because in Superman is indicative of a diminish- it always-already produces complex and ment of power but rather is a direct result problematic barriers for developing an un- thereof. It is precisely because the character’s derstanding of what Superman is whereby power persists despite the fractured nature “[always-] already [the reader is] compelled of anything originary about it, its identi- through the narrative at [a simulacrum] of ties, extra-terrestrial and terrestrial alike, its Superman’s speed and required to focus on home planet, and the distance it always-al- the most significant, most intense elements ready experiences from its host planet that of every scene as if with [mock] supersens- the pervasiveness of its disequilibrium func- es.”22 Since the narrative at the point of the tions. Ultimately, Superman illustrates that cover of Action No. 1 is technically already power does not necessarily require a consis- over, the reader would indeed require su- tent or stable origin, particularly in terms of persenses to apprehend Superman’s actions, a rigid understanding or structuring of iden- as well as super faculties of comprehension tity, for it to exert itself and disrupt any and to understand it in real-time. As a result, all pre-existing conditions of being and the “the only solution is to be swept up in the phenomena in which it emerges. In this way, high-velocity slipstream of [its] streaming Action No. 1 innovatively suggests that it is red cape, one breathless step behind [it].”23 not a question of where or why power comes To be clear, I do not propose that the from with Superman. Rather, it is a question sense of temporal and existential fracture of where it will be and why it will be there.

Works Cited Freitas Jr., Robert A., Xenology: An Introduction to the Scientific Study of Extraterrestrial Life, Intelligence, and Civilization, Sacramento, California, 1979, http://www.xenology.info/Xeno.htm Jameson, Fredric, Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions, New York, Verso, 2005 Morrison, Grant, Supergods: Our World in the Age of the Superhero, London, Jonathan Cape, 2011 Murray, Will, “Superman’s Editor Mort Weisinger,” in Eury, Michael (ed.), The Krypton Companion, Raleigh, United States, 2006, pp. 8-14 Roberson, Chris, “Jewel Mountains and Fire Falls,” in Glenn Yeffeth (ed.), The Man from Krypton: A Closer Look at Superman, Dallas, Texas, 2006, pp. 33-51 Seagle, Steven T. and Teddy H. Kristiansen, It’s A Bird..., New York, DC Comics, 2004 Siegel, Jerome and Joe Shuster, Action Comics Vol. 1, No. 1., New York, DC Comics, 1938 Stableford, Brian M., Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopaedia, New York, Routledge, 2006 Weldon, Glen, Superman: The Unauthorized Biography, Hoboken, New Jersey, Wiley, 2013.

Notes 1. Brian M. Stableford, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopaedia, New York, Routledge, 2006, p. 571. 2. Robert A. Freitas Jr., Xenology: An Introduction to the Scientific Study of Extraterrestrial Life, Intelligence, and Civilization, Sacramento, California, 1979, http://www.xenology.info/Xeno.htm. 3. Brian M. Stableford, Science Fact and Science Fiction: An Encyclopaedia, p. 571. A Xenological Exploration of the Otherness and Power of DC Comics’ Superman 199

4. Fredric Jameson, Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions, New York, Verso, 2005, p. 120. 5. Ibidem. 6. Ibidem. 7. Glen Weldon, Superman: The Unauthorized Biography, Hoboken, New Jersey, Wiley, 2013, pp. 118-9. 8. Glenn Yeffeth (ed.), The Man from Krypton: A Closer Look at Superman, Dallas, Texas, 2006, p. 38. 9. Ibidem, p. 35. 10. Jerome Siegel & Joe Shuster, Action Comics Vol. 1, No. 1., New York, DC Comics, 1938, p. 1. 11. Glenn Yeffeth (ed.),The Man from Krypton: A Closer Look at Superman, pp. 36-7. 12. Michael Eury (ed.), The Krypton Companion, Raleigh, United States, 2006, pp. 12-13. 13. Fredric Jameson, Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions, p. 123. 14. Ibidem, p. 124. 15. Grant Morrison, Supergods: Our World in the Age of the Superhero, London, Jonathan Cape, 2011, p. 8. 16. Ibidem, p. 8. 17. Jerome Siegel & Joe Shuster, Action Comics Vol. 1, No. 1., p. 1; Grant Morrison, Supergods: Our World in the Age of the Superhero, p. 8. 18. Jerome Siegel & Joe Shuster, Action Comics Vol. 1, No. 1., p. 2. 19. Steven T. Seagle & Teddy H. Kristiansen, It’s A Bird..., New York, DC Comics, 2004, p. 104. 20. Grant Morrison, Supergods: Our World in the Age of the Superhero, p. 8. 21. Ibidem. 22. Ibidem. 23. Ibidem.