A pal of mine a couple days ago talked to me about ScrewAttack's Death Battle between Kirby and Majin Buu and stated Superman was lucky he didn't have to fight Buu. I told him he was right because Buu would turn Superman into food via his junkfood attack, though I disagreed that would completely remove Superman due to how Vegetto was capable of continued fighting and Superman might be capable of the same. It's a weird idea, since Superman is nothing like any of the characters there but that didn't matter. My pal decided that wasn't the factor he was talking about. He felt Buu should win since his power is fueled by and made up of MAGIC.
I about got up and slapped my buddy for that one. But I couldn't since I really can't blame him for thinking that way and because of several other legal and physical reasons (I don't want to get beat up). I can't believe people still believe this and that I'm doing a post on this. So let's just do this.
Superman and how magic IS NOT a weakness
This will be easiest if I say that magic isn't a weakness of Superman as much as it is just a vulnerability of Superman.
"You just did it! You just freaking admitted magic is a weakness!"
No.
No.
NOOOO!
Vulnerabilities and weaknesses overlap, but are not the same thing. So let me try again. There is no inherent weakness to magic in Superman. If magic were truly a weakness of his, then magic should be listed as a weakness to Batman, the Flash, the President of the United States, Tony Stark, Captain America, Spider-Man, and pretty much any character who doesn't have a power which resists magic like...say... Captain Marvel Shazam (not the wizard, though he should too). Why? Because none of those characters have inherent resistance to magic, which puts them on the same field as Superman. If we had to make a scale of 0-10 of magical resistance with 0 meaning no resistance and 10 meaning you're the omnipotent being of creation, Superman, Batman, and all humans would rest on 0.
"But Mak!" you whine, spitting out Mountain Dew in contempt while using your smuggest and righteous tone, "I've read a comic once, and I know for a fact magic was stated as the outright reason for Superman's defeat!" Sure, you did read that. This is why I can't blame my friend for thinking that way. Comics does itself no favors.
DC Comics has something of a continuity editing board, meaning that if someone tried to tell a Superman story where Superman tried to tell the tale of how his powers suddenly grow to project fire from his mouth and was born in Australia, the editors would fire back saying "No, change that." The problem is this doesn't always work, and this is compounded when writers and editors don't quite understand what they're seeing/doing. Let's not mince words, not everybody who works in the comic field understands the characters they manage or write about. It just happens, and some writers who take over characters sometimes only know the bare bones or just what they've heard about characters. When this happens, we have events of CIS, PIS, WIS, etc. Then we have events where Captain Marvel punches out Superman because he charged his fists with magic, and magic is the reason as opposed to the fact Captain Marvel simply boosted his physical power output. Or when Supergirl and Power Girl are separated by Alan Scott's ring because his barrier is made up of magic and since it's just a barrier shaped of magical energy the two Kryptonian powerhouses cannot move past it. These are bad representations because if these were true then anybody, ANYBODY, could put on a magic ring which just sort of puts a little magic in their system and wail on Kryptonians (and presumably Daxamites), or just learn a basic barrier spell and trap Superman in a forever cage he could never escape from personally, facilitating a need for Batman and some sort of anti-magic spray.
"But Mak, this is in the pages, it happens, therefore it's canon." This is lazy and really just speaks to how people want a character to fit their mold without understanding what this implies.
Just as often, if not more often, Superman is also shown bashing through magical barriers, shrugging off magic fireballs, and otherwise just living. "But Mak, the magic has to be done TO him!" YES!! We are half way there. "No no. I mean the magic has to come into contact to him." And that's where we restart. That's not true. It's not. Let's go back to the whole CM punching Superman deal. Some will say it was the magic in his fists which put him down, or the magic lightning bolt which hurt Superman (lightning hurts Superman anyway, since his body isn't rubber and his nervous system is electrical like ours), but that's bunk. Why? Easy. Living on Earth should then destroy Superman. Earth is the focal point of magic in the entire universe, and it pervades it, and it is filled with magical heroes many of which have come into contact and have served alongside Superman. It's why the Rock of Eternity is on Earth, because Earth has so much freaking magic. Let's not even put into play that Captain Marvel is always a magic being, charged and ebbing with the stuff, and should render Superman unconscious every time they shake hands, let's look at the issue where Billy used the lightning bolt to weaken Superman because it was magic and how it pretty much goes against the rest of the issue. Superman was being possessed by Eclipso. ECLIPSO. Eclipso the proto-Spectre. Eclipso is a ridiculously powerful magic being who decided to infuse Superman's body with the entirety of it's power. MAGIC power. If the whole "Superman is weak to the presence of magic" bit was correct, Superman should have straight up exploded if not just went all Raiders of the Lost Ark and melted into a pool.
So let's spell out what magic and Superman do when they interact.
Superman is simply subject to the effect of the magic spell if it moves past his physical durability. For instance, if you were some sort of magician which specializes in fire casting magic and you sent explosive fireballs at Superman, they would effect him as any explosive fireball would. Not because Superman has a resistance to magical fire, but because Superman is normally resistant to the effects of that spell. The source of the fire is magic, and unless the intended spell is to burn literally everything rather than just be magic caused fire, it will not effect Superman in any abnormal way. The same goes for lightning, ice, water, etc. However, if the intended spell is something like a sword which cuts anything or has a spell which increases it's cutting power to levels above Superman's natural durability, then Superman will be harmed. If the spell makes people go to sleep, Superman will go to sleep. If it's a spell that lumps a chunk of magic like a big rock, then chances are Superman can punch it into space. It isn't hard. It shouldn't be this hard to explain. It shouldn't be this hard to understand.
Magic was used to show how people can exploit and work around Superman's near invincibility as a character. Telepathy, magic, emotions, things like that as ways of showing Superman can't just walk into every fight and punch things until he wins. Recently in the New 52, Superman had to fight Captain Comet and Comet pretty much shut him down.
So where is all the banter about Superman having an increased weakness to telepathic characters? The matter is, telepathic character interactions are easy to map out. Is the opposing character telepathic or stated with overt telepathic resistance? Then 9/10 times the answer is obvious. But magic and Superman are so intertwined with confusion on how magic works that is creates a lot of confusion and poor writing. When it was introduced as a vulnerability for Superman some confused the idea as Superman having some sort of weakness like Kryptonite because that's how weaknesses tended to be presented for the Man of Steel. Unknown variable causes negativity which then must be a weakness. Kryptonite, Red Sun energy, etc. Especially given how immediate it works, and everybody just being used to Superman tanking anything which comes his way. It sucks because people see it and say, "Well, it's Superman. If he can't even resist it a little it must be a weakness. That's how Superman works!" But it's not. And I have no clue how people still think this. Newcomers to comics see older fans say things like that and the cycle restarts, but I have no clue how older comic fans still say this. Fanboyism? Enforced internal ignorance? I have no clue.
Please enjoy this:
 |
| Once upon a time, a weakness of Superman's was not knowing how to teach lessons that made sense. And modesty |
No comments:
Post a Comment