3 ms·

It would be reductive to ignore the Jewishness of it all, at least as a millieu, particularly considering the shared heritage of its co-creators. The entire com

It would be reductive to ignore the Jewishness of it all, at least as a millieu, particularly considering the shared heritage of its co-creators. The entire comic book industry of its time was (like Hollywood of the time) largely the work of refugees, emigrés and their descendants. There are definitely riffs on Nietsche in there, course. Not least in the name gag. But it's just one example of the extraordinary amount of hidden/telegraphed Jewishness in US culture of the time. And because it is so well-hidden, people are often surprised when you point it out. (Like, can you name a really popular Christmas pop song that was not written or co-written by a Jewish person?)

staticman2 5y ago
The character of Superman isn't used to explore ideas from the Talmud or religious ideas, as far as I know. Sure his having a secret identity as Clark Kent can be seen as mirroring a Jew trying to assimilate among gentiles. His having fled a dead planet can be seen as mirroring Jews fleeing from pogroms. There's a lot of messianic symbolism, but the moral issue he has to solve is "Lex Luther wants to blow up the west coast of the U.S." not some parable of Talmidic law. The moral conundrums Superman faces are simple inarguable concepts like "genocide is bad" or "that guy on death row is innocent and somebody should find the real killer and save him". Or "law and order." If he struggles whether to "interfere" with society it's obviously because the formula of a Superman story is about restoring the status quo to society after a villain tries to disrupt society or blow it up, to be repeated in the next adventure. Superman deciding not to "interfere" is just an in story explanation for the repeated formula of a low brow pulp serial. The people who make the comics do not and did not even have creative freedom to stray too far from this formula. Superman is not owned by the men and women who write and draw the comics.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  > The character of Superman isn't used to explore ideas from the Talmud or religious ideas, as far as I know. I guess exploration was not quite the right word, and this is a fair point for sure. I didn't mean it to sound quite as explicit. What I suppose I mean is that there's a sort of narrative exposition of it. It's not subconscious, I think is what I mean, even if it is not explicit. Growing up the way Siegel did it would have been difficult to ignore a whole set of stories and cultural associations and dialogues. The parallels about Superman himself are telegraphed, as you say. He's a refugee, he partially assimilated, and the main brake on his ability to get involved is a very explicit understanding that he cannot break cover without risk (though this is much more evident in the cinema Superman films I think). Both Siegel and Shuster were from families who had changed their names to avoid discrimination. The stories are simple but I am not sure they start off from anything more than that experience. And the notion of justice and injustice is as I understand it very much something the Talmud concerns itself with. As well as at least one story about whether a largely absent Hebrew god should be allowed to to interfere.

staticman2 5y ago

The character of Superman isn't used to explore ideas from the Talmud or religious ideas, as far as I know. Sure his having a secret identity as Clark Kent can be seen as mirroring a Jew trying to assimilate among gentiles. His having fled a dead planet can be seen as mirroring Jews fleeing from pogroms. There's a lot of messianic symbolism, but the moral issue he has to solve is "Lex Luther wants to blow up the west coast of the U.S." not some parable of Talmidic law. The moral conundrums Superman faces are simple inarguable concepts like "genocide is bad" or "that guy on death row is innocent and somebody should find the real killer and save him". Or "law and order." If he struggles whether to "interfere" with society it's obviously because the formula of a Superman story is about restoring the status quo to society after a villain tries to disrupt society or blow it up, to be repeated in the next adventure. Superman deciding not to "interfere" is just an in story explanation for the repeated formula of a low brow pulp serial. The people who make the comics do not and did not even have creative freedom to stray too far from this formula. Superman is not owned by the men and women who write and draw the comics.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> The character of Superman isn't used to explore ideas from the Talmud or religious ideas, as far as I know. I guess exploration was not quite the right word, and this is a fair point for sure. I didn't mean it to sound quite as explicit. What I suppose I mean is that there's a sort of narrative exposition of it. It's not subconscious, I think is what I mean, even if it is not explicit. Growing up the way Siegel did it would have been difficult to ignore a whole set of stories and cultural associations and dialogues. The parallels about Superman himself are telegraphed, as you say. He's a refugee, he partially assimilated, and the main brake on his ability to get involved is a very explicit understanding that he cannot break cover without risk (though this is much more evident in the cinema Superman films I think). Both Siegel and Shuster were from families who had changed their names to avoid discrimination. The stories are simple but I am not sure they start off from anything more than that experience. And the notion of justice and injustice is as I understand it very much something the Talmud concerns itself with. As well as at least one story about whether a largely absent Hebrew god should be allowed to to interfere.