Is Barack Obama The Superman Of "Earth 23"? An Analysis Of Action Comics #9

Action Comics #9 was one of the most bizarre comics I've read in some time -- extremely meta, even for Grant Morrison. Having read it after recently finishing the Our Hero: Superman on Earth by Tom De Haven (Yale University Press), I recognized many similarities between the two, almost as if Morrison was specifically referencing the book. The issue, written by Morrison and Sholly Fisch, has a lot of (at times quite ambivalent) commentary regarding the present man in the White House (if you believe that the Superman of Earth 23 is indeed based on Barack Obama) -- though here I'm just going to focus mostly on the elements of the story that specifically reference Superman as as mythical/mystical entity.

The Origins Of "The Curse Of Superman"
We can link even the title of the main story, "The Curse Of Superman," with pages 184-185 of the De Haven book, where the author investigates if there is indeed a Curse of Superman (exact wording). While he notes that George Reeves and Christopher Reeve have both had "bad luck" (which is an understatement), the rest of the actors who played the Man of Steel seemed to be OK (though Dean Cain's illustrious career in sleazy TV movies is sort of on the fence, in my opinion).

Is the Clark Kent of the other alternate universe in Action Comics #9 -- the one who is horribly burned and presumably crippled for life -- referencing Chris Reeve? He utters, despite the pain, "The curse of Superman..." Unlike other Clark Kents, he seems to not be superhuman...his only power being to find a way to "tune into the sound vibrations of what had to be other universes," making "mind movies" of a "Superman brand." This is similar to what an actor tasked with portraying Superman might do.


But if, as De Haven has pointed out, there is no "Hollywood" Superman curse, where did it come from? He writes,

"No, the only verifiable Superman curse is the one that Jerry Siegel swore in April 1975 against Warner Communications, the Salkinds, and his old archenemy Jack Liebowitz.

And by God, Siegel actually cursed the movie! In Our Hero we read a portion of a press release the writer sent out in 1975: "I, Jerry Siegel, the co-originator of SUPERMAN, put a curse on the SUPERMAN movie." Now, any rational person would understand that there is no such thing as curses. But when you start to delve into the esoteric -- the way Morrison, author of the occult treatise "Pop Magic!", has done extensively -- you take a slightly different viewpoint on such matters.

Overcorp and "The Superman Brand"
And indeed, we find out in Action Comics #9 the origin of the Curse of Superman -- a thinly-disguised metaphor for Siegel's sale of Superman. This is pretty heavy-handed stuff, with the wicked "Overcorp" strong-arming Kent and his "co-creators" Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane into a crooked contract. The company's symbol is vaguely reminiscent of both the old DC "swoosh" and the new "peel," and, more shockingly, the Overcorp logo itself is done in the familiar Watchmen font and yellow color (particularly striking when you consider the Before Watchmen ad spread on the very next page)! It can even be said that the head of Overcorp bears a resemblance to Siegel "arch enemy" Liebowitz himself.

This ain't subtle, folks, especially coupled with dialogue like (cue evil eyes) "That's it. The dotted line. You won't regret this."

What happens next? Overcorp...

"...had 500 experts lined up. thinking in harmony to streamline the Superman brand for cross-spectrum, wide platform appeal.  

They built a violent, troubled, faceless anti-hero, concealing a tragic secret life, a global marketing icon.  

Everybody wears its brand. 

It makes people feel part of something big and new and cool. 

Superman helps them forget the reality of their drab, obedient, lonely lives."

Now, thanks to selling Superman to Overcorp, the people live in a fascist society, the hero's logo twisted into something almost resembling a swastika. Superman is mass-merchandised, and Kent's original intention to "change lives and inspire people" has gone horribly wrong.

Superman As Tulpa Gone Wrong

This Kent figure most probably represents Jerry Siegel as well, with Jimmy (who is also burnt and presumed dead in the story) being his co-creator Joe Shuster -- and Lois being perhaps Siegel's wife, who carried on legal procedures regarding the Superman copyright after his passing. Lois is the only one of the trio to survive intact (albeit missing an eye -- one-eyed symbolism being important, though I won't go through that High Weirdness in this post), and she is left to fight for the "cause."

And what is the Cause? There's an evil robotic Superman monster on the loose, trying to kill the "creators" of the original Superman. In one of the strangest scenes in the issue, Overcorp Superman graphically kills the tiny Superman of a world inhabited by costumed "super-babies"(!) No, not the Younglings too!

According to Action Comics #9, Kent, Lois and Jimmy created the Superman using their thoughts to make a thoughtform, or "tulpa." De Haven also references Superman-as-tulpa, referencing the opinion of former DC writer Alvin Schwartz in his 1997 book An Unlikely Prophet. Schwartz believed that Superman was a tulpa, literally created by the thoughts and energy behind the many contributors to his mythos.

"No More Heroes"
Now that Overcorp/The Corporation has taken control of the Superman tulpa, he has become evil -- embodied by the deadly robotic "Uber-Superman". And while the Superman of Earth 23 that Lois has sought help from is deemed "Superman done right" by her, it is the "God-Slaying," myth-slaying Lex Luthor who delivers the crucial injuries to the creature (shooting into his eye and also directly through his Overcorp symbol). Lex says he hates Superman/President Calvin Ellis not because of the color of his skin, but because he hates people elevated to the status of "gods" based on legend and the manipulation of Myth and Symbol. He hates all heroes. He is the best candidate to wipe the evil Uber-Superman out because his heart is closed to the charms of superheroes.

Luthor thinks the "raw essence" of Superman is a "smug fascist bully." De Haven concludes at the end of Our Hero this about Superman: "As with athletes and artists, there has always been a selfish, even a self-serving quality to Superman, to Superman's ego." At the very final conclusion of that analysis of Superman in pop-culture, the author points out that Superman ultimately does good not due to any self-sacrifice on his part, but because it's fun for him. Not very encouraging, and neither are Superman/President Ellis's actions at the end of the back-up story, where he cavalierly manipulates his position and his abilities to go beyond the letter of the law -- for good, of course.

There is a deep pessimism about heroes in Action Comics #9, and it almost feels as if Morrison might be taking the side of the fanatic Luthor character (who, in his wide-eyed rantings, could stand in for any number of current conspiracy theory gurus). Maybe unleashing heroes/tulpas upon the world is too dangerous. They can fall into the wrong hands. They can get dazzled by their own abilities and corrupted. By assigning the "magic" number 23 to this particular Earth, the writer is signaling that there is something really important here for us to read, something "key." 23 is the number representing synchronicity, and Morrison is synchronizing it all -- the upcoming election, the latest motions in the Siegel lawsuit against DC, perhaps even the New 52 and De Haven's own book.

Obama As Superman As Symbol
And while Morrison seems to be solidly in Siegel's court, his support of President Ellis/Obama seems to be another matter entirely. Like many conspiracy theorists claim about Obama (and Morrison regularly borrows wholesale from these guys), it supposedly isn't a race thing for "God-Slayer" Luthor about the President...it's a hatred for the Symbol and Mythology. Through photo opps and press conference quips, Obama has linked himself to the Superman character. The famous painting by Alex Ross depicting Obama in a Superman-like pose (which looks nearly identical to the cover to Action Comics #9) also has solidified this connection in the mind of the public.

So what exactly is this issue saying about the president? Why does Fisch's back-up story basically reiterate and validate the Birther argument...coming not from crazy Luthor but Superman's friend Nubia? Why does President Ellis have a fleet of sinister-looking robot doubles controlled by Brainiac (!) -- especially in light of the fact that when the Superman tulpa became evil, he too took on the form of a robot? This isn't that issue of Spider-Man with the smiling president on the cover...this is something completely different. I could sit here all day and give specific examples of what conspiracy theorist ideas Morrison is referencing all through this issue regarding our President. I could also base an entire research paper on just this one issue -- imagine what might happen when Action Comics #10 comes out!

But as weird as the content of this issue is, the weirdest thing about Action Comics #9 is this: DC Comics actually printed it. Is this the manifestation of what Morrison describes as covertly destabilizing the corporate system by working at cross-purposes within it? Or does the publisher score the final point in this metaphysical game of leap-frog by publishing the "destabilizing" element -- literally owning the story, and reaping the benefits of publicity?