A little while ago, I read something by screenwriter Max Landis (who most recently wrote Chronicle) that went like this: “Batman is Batman out of perceived obligation, personal trauma, and obsession. Superman is Superman BY CHOICE. Superman is a better character.”

Something about this continues to piss me off. The unclear use of the idea of “character,” the idea that moral absolutism is more interesting than at least some measure of moral ambiguity; it all bugs me. So I thought I’d try and articulate my opinions on Superman, since I really haven’t had a chance to do so at length before.

There seems to be a dissonance between Landis’ definition of the word “character” and my own. He uses it as if it meant “person,” where I tend toward an amalgam of characteristics that define a person in an interesting or unique way. For instance, I think Joffrey Baratheon from Game of Thrones is an incredible character, and yet I still want to put the little bastard’s head on a spike. He’s a good character, but he’s far from a good person.

I’m not denying that Superman isn’t a good person, because he is. In fact, he’s pretty much the best person ever. His only weakness is a green rock from a distant planet. There is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to listing every single ability he has had in each incarnation, and it’s not exactly of modest length. He very infrequently falls to temptation (or at least, hasn’t in the stuff I’ve read). He has essentially no flaws.

This is the primary problem I have with Superman; how can there ever be dramatic tension when this man is so unstoppable? How can he be entertaining? How can his static, unflinching moral compass be a part of an intriguing character? How can a character that is not flawed be a part of a story that isn’t a boring, moralistic, one-note affair?

Landis bases his argument on the fact that Superman is Superman by choice, and I have to question the validity of that statement. He was sent away from Krypton as a child because it was being destroyed, which was not his choice. He lands on Earth rather than any other planet; again, not his choice. And as an alien with powers unmatched who is hated and hunted by other aliens with powers very nearly unmatched, he’s pretty much got one career path laid out ahead of him.

Batman may do what he does primarily out of perceived obligation, but it’s based on something of an actual obligation to deal with maniacs and criminals that can only be dealt with by a man as rich and as intelligent as Bruce Wayne. Superman’s obligation is almost identical, but on a more cosmic scale. Who else is going to save the Earth several dozen times over from other Kryptonians and insanely rich bald men?

On the other hand, what else would Superman do? He works for the Daily Planet only as a cover for his real identity (also, let’s not get into how silly the with-glasses = Clark Kent, without-glasses = Superman thing is). Is he going to go into super law? Maybe he could be a super fry cook. Heat vision might speed things up a notch.

I simply don’t see how Superman has any choice other than to be Superman, just like Bruce Wayne seemingly has no choice but to be Batman. The reason I adore Batman stories is that he has thought-provoking, interesting reasons and motivations for doing the things he does. Would it be a problem if Batman only fought crime because of the reasons Landis listed? Maybe, but at least it would be because of character flaws and weaknesses.

These things are the reason we love Shakespearean dramas, Greek tragedies and mythology, and all great literature and narrative. They’re interesting and resonant because they ask important questions and make us examine ourselves through new lenses. What does Superman tell us about the nature of humanity, or even things that are alien to us? What kinds of intelligent things do stories about him have to say about good and evil, right and wrong?

I think it’s about time I examine a character similar to Superman that got things pretty much perfect; Dr. Manhattan from Alan Moore’s fantastic Watchmen. Even though he isn’t technically an alien, Dr. Manhattan is a parallel the famous Kryptonian, and not only acts as a way for Moore to comment on what happens when someone gains such an insane amount of power, but also to deconstruct the concept of Superman.

Manhattan’s transformation essentially turns him into an all-knowing god, and with this advancement, he loses most traces of humanity pretty much instantaneously. His insights are profound and the way his presence on Earth affects so much is a really stunning thing to watch. Manhattan is omniscient, omnipotent, and uncaring. His inhumanity is devastating, tragic, and profoundly beautiful.

Superman’s presence, on the other hand, just tends to keep the world from being destroyed. Other than in Red Son, (which is one of the few Superman stories I actually enjoy, along with his cameo in The Dark Knight Returns) people just seem to accept that a superhuman can exist. No one’s brain explodes because of this guy’s incredible power.

I understand that comics (particularly superhero comics) wouldn’t be where they are today without the presence of Superman. All I’m saying is that I’m shocked that people seem to gravitate towards him rather than anyone else.