Superman #247 (1972)
written by Elliot S. Maggin & Curt Swan
I have two particularly controversial opinions on the Superman of the 70s.
The first is that I don’t particularly care for Elliot S. Maggin as a writer… he’s not bad by any stretch of the term, but I don’t see why he’s often praised as one of the best Superman writers.
The second is about this issue.
It’s pretty consistently ranked among the best Superman stories ever told… and I kind of hate it.
The teaser page is exaggerating for dramatic effect: the Guardians Of The Universe are not literally putting Superman on trial for crimes against humanity…
…although if we were talking 60s Superman, they might have had a point.
We truly begin with Superman dealing with a cosmic menace, a bunch of yellow spores that threaten to wreak havoc in the Galaxy.
One of the effects of DC’s effort to limit the use of Kryptonte is that red sun radiation is a more frequent weakness in the 70s.
Just in case you were wondering if the comics were still going to make any use of the concept of Superman now being weaker, his solution is to build a new planetoid to trap the spores.
This leaves him unconscious thanks to the effects of the red sun, but one of the Green Lanterns manages to save him.
There are two reasons for the Guardians to have recruited Superman for the job.
The official one was that, since the spores were yellow, the Green Lantern Corps couldn’t handle them.
But the UNOFFICIAL reason is to take this occasion to mess with Superman’s head.
Knowing the Guardians, it’s only a matter of time before this decision ends up endangering the entire universe. That’s basically what always happens with those guys.
This is not a criticism of the story. Quite the opposite, one of the reasons why I love the Guardians is how they are judgmental and hypocritical manipulators who n-e-v-e-r learn from their mistakes.
To be specific it’s why I love to READ them; they deserve to be punched daily for a couple billion years straight.
Although… what is even the point of implanting ideas in his subconscious if you’re ALSO putting things in his head by just talking?
The Guardians have an example of what they’re talking about.
Specifically it’s a JLA story from 1970, written by Mike Friedrich and with one of the most melodramatic covers of the era.
That’s a story where the JLA saves a planet from its pollution.
The speech is taken directly from the JLA story, and keep in mind what Superman is saying here.
He’s saying that for trouble of this magnitude, superheroes can only provide a temporary solution, buying time for regular people to fix their own society.
The difference between how the JLA story and this issue present their message will be crucial for why I don’t like this story.
Having successfully put doubts on Superman’s head, the Guardians are quite happy with themselves.
While thinking this over, Superman returns to Earth. Specifically California, where he witnesses a guy mistreating his workers.
I do have some positive things to say about this story. Specifically this scene, where Superman calling out the other workers for only being brave while Superman is around.
After all this doesn’t look like a situation entirely out of hand for the other workers: they COULD have helped the kid even without Superman.
So the story COULD go for a “everyone can be a hero if they do their part” angle, which is a fantastic idea for Superman.
It won’t exactly do that.
Another part I really like: Superman seeing more than a little of himself in the kid, ESPECIALLY with that artwork!
This part is REALLY good.
But then…
…we reach the part I hate. Because it’s YET ANOTHER occasion, and likely the most famous one, that showcases a very frequent attitude for Superman in the 70s.
The idea that since Superman can’t fix EVERYTHING wrong with society, he should DO NOTHING.
Sure he can deal with an earthquake…
…and he can rebuild the houses destroyed by the earthquake.
But that’s it: unless there is a natural disaster or an alien invasion, it’s not that Superman can’t do anything… the story argues that Superman SHOULDN’T do anything!!!
Superman plays this off the previous scene with the kid.
The title of the story is “Must there be a Superman?”, and the answer given by the story is a very explicit “nope!”.
I could understand it if the workers were making unreasonable demands, but we were shown only TWO requests to Superman:
1) stop our employer from beating us and exploiting us
2) build us now homes because we’re living in squalor
Now I could get behind Superman’s position if, after this, he made a public speech supporting the rights of the workers or pushed public opinion in favor of the rest of the country to help.
I could even accept if he wanted to do this as Clark Kent… but he just moves to dealing with another emergency.
But Superman, if you keep helping boats in danger, how will humanity learn to deal with storms without relying on you to always save them from drowning?
Congratulations, Guardians Of The Universe, you have successfully convinced a hero that he can ONLY work against natural events and absolutely nothing else.
Historical significance: 0/10
I don’t think this has in-universe significance. I don’t count real life events in the score of this category, but this story is consistently included in volumes reprinting “the best Superman stories”.
Somehow.
Silver Age-ness: 8/10
Casual planetary construction.
Does it stand the test of time? -5/10
I have exactly the same problem with this story that I had with Action Comics #393, but I don’t think it’s as bad because at least Superman does have moral doubts about the situation and genuinely struggles to reach the conclusion… even if I still think it’s a bad one that betrays what Superman is supposed to stand for.
As mentioned there ARE good things in this: Superman relating to the kid is great, with Curt Swan’s artwork even better in those panel than in the rest of the story, which is saying something given that he’s amazing throughout it.
I still think this story has a TERRIBLE message.
The workers were not asking something unreasonable to Superman! While there are several arguments against him just rebuilding the houses and leaving… he takes this way too far by deciding to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except giving an empty speech.
Not even going to the employer to tell him he should treat his employees better? REALLY?
And if you’re thinking that this is me applying 2026 sensibilities to a 1972 story when I ask for a story where Superman cares for the well-being of workers, facing their employer and teaching him a lesson on how to treat them better… that’s THE PLOT OF ACTION COMICS #3.
This isn’t me trying to be a contrarian, I have genuinely tried to get what everybody sees in this issue.
If you’re one of those who consider it among the best Superman stories, by all means try to convince me in the comments. I promise to keep an open mind.
Bonus: we have a backup Clark Kent story (by Denny O’Neil), which includes a scene where he tries to smoke.
I’ve never smoked, but I definitely agree Clark.
Interesting letters: we have the reader feedback from the Sand Superman storyline, and it’s… not great.
I remind you that THIS ISSUE includes Superman building a celestial body almost from scratch.
Yeah, I’m with you. The story sets up the Guardians as the supreme wisdom of the cosmos when it’s so easy to prove just how fallible they are. Krona was one of their own – you know, the guy who ignored every warning and introduced evil to the universe? Maggin has kind of a point; a Superman who solves ALL of the human race’s problems reduces humanity to pets, and with his ridiculous list of powers, he could do that much – but he never goes that far. Saving lives is never going too far. Therefore, the little blue geeks are talking garbage.
Also, Clark – what do you expect from “Crud Pipe Tobacco”?
Thank you. I read this in Greatest Superman Stories Ever Told and have always thought, “I don’t get why this is good.” It’s not that the message is per se wrong, it’s just, as you say, the execution and the specific examples don’t make the point the story seems to want to make, and, in fact, do the opposite.
There is a certain Prime Directive aspect to super-heroes that has to be indulged both for suspension of disbelief (Superman not fighting the USSR in the Cold War) and because a being of Superman’s power who exercised no restraint would convert humanity into zoo animals (a concern explored somewhat in Miracleman). But you don’t have to show Superman refusing to fix a roof to make a point about self-reliance. I always reasoned that, because he’s one guy, Earth people understood that odds were he wasn’t going to show up for their particular emergency if it wasn’t an emergency every news channel was covering. And if he fixes a few roofs here and there, it would be the super-hero universe equivalent of those people catching a home run ball at a Major League Baseball game. Accordingly, the Guardians’ concern was vastly over-exaggerated. That’s not a hard concept even for younger readers to figure out.
But I have also never liked Hard Traveling Heroes, so maybe I’m just out of touch with 70s “relevant” comics in general.
Conservative Superman is. the. worst.
There is nothing wrong with saying that people should solve their own problems and not rely on a god-like figure to make the world a better place. But the notion that those in power (or even super-power) have no responsibility to help those in need takes a binary and self-serving approach, one expressed these days by many so-called conservatives.
Steve Shives, the host of a YouTube channel I follow, reviewed the Superman: Peace on Earth graphic novel, and concluded that Superman’s failure to inspire people was because Superman did not take into account people’s lack of empathy. He has a valid point. Many today think of empathy as a bridge toward learned helplessness or gaming the system. To such thinking, there is no middle ground. (The review can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usVf6W_fWJQ
Incidentally, Shives also has a review on the Sand Superman story (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6jO_6GiIYA), though I haven’t watched it.
It’s the opposite for me: I have seen his review of the Sand storyline, but not his review of #247.
I’ll definitely check it out, we seem to have fairly similar ideas on comics.
for the thing about superman now having half his power yet building a celestial body almost from scratch, just remember
half of infinity, is still infinity.
If superpowers should not be used lest they go all prime directive on the civilizations, why are Green Lantern Corps members based on their home worlds?
I applaud Maggin for thinking big, but yeah, he doesn’t really have a way to resolve the problem.
And we’re stuck with the classic comic book conundrum: We want the fictional world to look like ours so it makes sense, but the advent of superpowers and super tech would change it in bizarre ways. Not surprisingly, most writers who play that out wind up with dystopic visions.
“If Superman helps humanity, humanity will never learn to help themselves!”
That’s become Lex Luthor’s credo. The Guardians should never sound like Luthor. Even within the story, they’re trying to brainwash Superman as well as persuade him. They must know their arguments aren’t valid or they wouldn’t be performing their operation on him.
I thought that Superboy’s last story was bad.
This is the WORST, so far. This is exactly the fecking OPPOSITE of what Superman stands for! Superman was literally BORN AS “THE CHAMPION OF THE OPPRESSED” It is in his own editorial STATUS!
OF COURSE you can’t have Supes solving all of the world’s problems, DUH!, but what would, in this specific story, prevent him from bringing a de facto slaver in front of the justice and have the slaves testimony against him!
THIS IS THE MOST IDIOTIC PERSPECTIVE OF THE MOST NOBLE OF HEROES! AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!