When creating a character there are many spectrum of personality and trait and motivation that should be considered in order to craft a real, interesting, and engaging character. One of the most important of these spectrum is one I don't see discussed much. That spectrum is the difference between something I think of as a character's Essence and their Form. Superman is invincible. He draws his power from sunlight, and it grows infinitely. Barring complex side-plots and meta-verses and bad live-action adaptations, his potential to affect our world is limitless. He can end WWIII by crushing every army on Earth. He can slow the heat death of the universe with his frost breath. He can turn back time by flying counterclockwise around the Earth. Anything Superman wants to do he can do. Superman is also an immigrant. He is an alien born of another planet and culture who will never share the same experience as a human. He doesn't really fear death, human pain is below him, and he never has to answer to anyone or anything. His genetics give him great power. No one can tell him what to do. He is essentially a god. And yet, Superman mourns dead humans. He empathizes with humanity's pain and war and struggle. He serves truth, justice, and the American way, and when that wasn't enough he still swore to defend Earth. Superman is an example of a character of Essence. The core of Superman's character struggle isn't if he can crush the evil, it's whether or not he should. The best Superman stories aren't about whether or not he can rip Zodd's head off, they're about him struggling with the morality of actions that are more complex that simple feats the strength. If Brainiac was a 7 year old child, should Superman kill him to save a city? Should he kill Darkseid, after Darkseid's slaves saved him from a head injury Superman caused? Should Superman just snatch a suicidal person from the rooftop, or should he try and talk them down calmly, so that person has chosen to live instead of being forced to live? Batman is the opposite of this: A character of Form. Ninja-trained Billionaire Bruce Wayne determined early on what his morals were: he will be the fear in the criminals, the justice at the edge, doing things the police never could because they are accountable to the people. He rarely struggles with his beliefs because at the beginning of the story he's already in the right. The struggle in Batman's character isn't whether he should crush evil, it's whether or not he can. Is he strong enough? Are his gadgets properly designed? How many friends will he have to call, or how many enemies? Batman rarely struggles with right and wrong because he's the goddamn Batman, but he does struggle with the pain and grit of actually having to rip justice from the fist of the Joker with a crowbar stuck in his neck. The best Batman stories show him scraping by the skin of his teeth to barely win the fight for good against pure, deranged, giggling evil, and when he finally does we gasp for breath and hold our wounds along with him. Where on the Essence vs Form spectrum your character falls is important. If you find your character is too powerful, but don't give them a moral struggle, they fall flat. They become boring. If a character is struggling through hardship with their bare bleeding hands, but doesn't have a strong driving motivation or belief, then we're just watching a madman flail at nothing. We're watching a cenobite. Superman is relatable because, for all his strength, he struggles with the same moral dilemmas we do. Batman is relatable because, despite his indefatigable will, he could die just like us. There are many different nuances and subtleties to this spectrum, and a character doesn't have to be purely one or the other, but when creating a character its important to think of where they fall on this spectrum. Essence characters will need complex moral choices and nuanced foils to the use of their power, and Form characters will need a strong bedrock belief, and hardship to temper it. Good characters face great, terrible conflicts we probably never will, but how they handle it is what makes them real to us.
I totally agree that these are cool things to think about with your character. I always have to chime in when I see people talking about Superman being invincible. As a fan of the comic and the cartoon, he's anything but. If anything, he suffers from the Worf Complex: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWorfEffect That page even starts off with a bit from the Superman comic. Superman has been punched to death. Wizards sap him with "the red rays of krypton" and drop him in a frame. Lex Luther has a powersuit with a fist that has six different colors of kryptonite, like it's the infinity gauntlet. I mean, Superman gets wrecked more than any character I've ever read about. He gets dropped more often than Jean Gray. Wonder Woman whipped his ass in a 1v1 fight while he was at full power and trying to kill her. There are literally dozens of characters that can beat Superman to death with their fists. He's kinda regular. There were times when comics didn't take themselves as seriously, like back in the silver age when Superman could blow out a star like a candle, but it hasn't been the way for a long time. Otherwise, yes, lol, totally agree with you.
I love this analysis, and it brings up great points about basic character development. Very well-written, too, I should say! I love making flawed characters, characters I or others can relate to. None of my protagonists are invincible - in fact, they are very vulnerable most of the time - and sometimes they lack the courage to dive into the fray head-first. But the point is that they grow beyond that insecurity. Through their hardships, they discover their own strength and essentially grow up. That's why I like coming of age stories to an extent, because you really can explore that aspect. In this case, my characters tend to be characters of "Form". They could "defeat evil" and overcome their inner weaknesses if they wanted to, they just need to believe that they can do it.
I'd broadly agree. Both characters are decent exemplars of both ends, though labeling either as purely one type or the other is a mistake. There are Superman stories where the audience is left wondering whether he'll be able to win, with relatively little moral conflict involved. John touched on some of those. And there are Batman stories where he faces moral dilemmas. Should he ditch his no-kill rule and end the Joker once and for all (a classic one, though it almost always has the same answer)? Should he trust his allies and bring them in to help, or hold them at a distance to "keep them safe" (a dilemma that comes up in Death of the Family and Endgame, with different answers both times)? Can he overcome his fear of loss and be happy (his ongoing romance arc with Catwoman)? It's interesting to note that where Superman's moral dilemmas often focus on the external conflict, Batman's turn inward. Personally, my protags tend toward a balance. They have the abilities to defeat many threats they might face, but some conflicts are knockdown drag out fights where they barely scrape by. Others challenge their morals. Some do both. The MC of my current project is ultimately forced to pass up a chance to destroy organized crime in his city (which he vehemently hates) in order to stop a larger threat (which is still a close run thing). And like my characters' position on the scale, their dilemmas tend to be balanced between external and internal.
This is a great analysis, with some great points. Thanks for sharing! *trots off to examine MC's motives*
I'm not so sure I seem much of a difference between the form and essence of a character unless it's just the wording throwing me off. Characters are supposed to be complex, and I think even more so in literature than in comics. It's a collection of complexities that make characters successful and believable. That's how I see it rather than in terms of form and essence.
