Always come back to Grant Morrison's quote: “Adults...struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it's not real. Kids understand that real crabs don't sing like the ones in The Little Mermaid. But you give an adult fiction, and the adult starts asking really ****ing dumb questions like `how does superman fly? How do those eyebeams work? Who pumps the batmobile's tires?' it's a ****ing made-up story, you idiot! Nobody pumps the tires!"
I’m curious about the context of this quote. Was Morrison referring to fellow Superman
writers whose expositional approach he disagrees with? Or are the “adults” in question
fans?
If it’s the former, fair enough. In hard sci-fi, authors often “explain” (at least up to a point) how advanced tech or strange phenomena function. But with fantasy/science fantasy, there’s wisdom in the “less said, the better” adage. For example, Superman flies. It’s got something to do with Earth’s yellow star. The end.
But if it’s the latter, methinks Morrison is guilty of strawmanning. I’ve seen lots of fellow geeks conjecture in great detail as to how Supes’ powers might work; how/why his suit is indestructible (and does the reason also apply to his cape?); is the Flash faster than Supes (or vice versa)?; etc. etc. But this is playful spitballing. It’s like Trekkers wondering how the transporters’ “Heisenberg compensators” work. (“Very well,” according to the technical advisers.
) Put another way, I’ve never encountered an actual Superman
fan who abandoned the character because the “explanation” for flight or x-ray vision was scientifically unsatisfactory. Again, it’s just nerdy talk. Morrison should lighten up.
That said… a more pragmatic issue (which you alluded to) pertains to the plausibility of the Clark Kent/glasses disguise. Few of us have the scientific expertise to understand the electromagnetic distinction between yellow and red stars. So when a fantasy author says the difference produces “superpowers,” we just wink and go with it. OTOH, we all have firsthand experience with eyeglasses and their limited ability to camouflage. Thus, some fans have speculated about employing certain changes that might be more convincing. And here, I think the motive is well-meaning. Perhaps one reason that Supes has lost some of his cachet is that modern, “sophisticated” (cynical?) audiences deem the disguise silly. Improve the disguise (somehow) and you enhance the character’s appeal. A contentious suggestion, to be sure. And had Morrison directed his ire to this point, he might be on firmer ground. To wit: the glasses disguise is —like singing crabs in
The Little Mermaid — a fantastical artifice. You either accept it or you don’t. But it’s a non-negotiable. And if that turns off the cynics, so be it.
In general, I think “fanwanking” how super powers might (or might not) work, how a disguise might (or might not) be plausible, etc. are pretty harmless activities. Moreover, such conversations can often be stimulating and (especially for aspiring writers) educational. Yet, Morrison seems to be saying don’t critically “engage” with the object of your interest. Just passively accept it. Well, that ain’t gonna happen. That’s kinda the
opposite of fandom.
