Not at all related to the movie, but I found it interesting and wanted to share (it does cite MoS as an example).
Interesting essay, thank you for sharing. I think he does an OK job at citing symptoms but I disagree with the premise / conclusion. I don't believe deconstruction is inherently bad or that it must tear down. Another way to reword deconstruction is rendering. As comics moved from being disposable entertainment where its target audience was meant to grow out of the medium and into modern myth, the audience naturally craved more sophistication, depth, and reality to their 4-color heroes... that increase in rendering (of detail, of back story, of psychology, of rationality, etc) could challenge or deconstruct some elemental tenants of a character, but it could also be the basis of fantastic characterization not accessible to the original 4-color two-dimensional characters they used to be.
I think the real problem with comic book writers attempting to render Superman is that they haven't taken the time to study good people or aren't good people approaching the degree that Superman is.
It is easy to write the more sophisticated, flawed, and broken Batman, since we've all felt petty vengeance. It is easy to give nuance to rage fantasies we've all felt in Wolverine or Hulk. These are utterly common, base, and human experiences felt by the writers and readers alike.
It is much more difficult to translate extraordinary goodness to people consuming comic book entertainment typically filled with violence, sex, etc... written by people who've consumed the same and live the same. As such, Superman's goodness is often a parody of the real thing or it is assaulted and deconstructed by writers and readers who can't quite understand it. They end up clinging to the same rage and power fantasies they're familiar with and Superman becomes about losing control, showing people up, lording power over others, etc.
This is a trite analogy, but it is a little like asking a vehement atheist to write about charity, kindness, security, comfort, and strength religion brings to a believer with the goal of persuading a hostile atheist audience. It's hard for them to not inject snark, critique, etc. into it and hard for the audience to receive it without extracting the same.
Superman's faith in humanity, paternalism, compassion, etc. don't have the same visceral connection or pay off that punching someone in vengeance has. That said, across all Superman media, it's been captured, here and there. People are moved by his relationship with his father(s), his compassion for those who've given up hope, being an ever-present rescuer, standing by his convictions, his love life, etc. But these moments are the exception rather than the rule.
I think the essay is a step in the right direction by calling out negative deconstruction, but I don't think that means deconstruction needs to stop... rather, it needs to be deeper and more realistic rendering of what it means to be a good and responsible person.
Acting selflessly, heroically, and good while having so much power really is an alien thing to us... but no so alien that the writers can't do some research and start to translate it in a compelling fashion to us.
Anyways, I think the essay sort of shoehorns MoS in by citing doubt and hesitation. To me, that shade of rendering on Clark's faith and hope is what makes it compelling... that his faith to do good and his hope that humanity would deserve it was hard fought over skepticism and cynicism, as it would be in the real world, rather than something just intrinsically inside of him effortlessly imparted to him in a cave... he had to wrestle and was victorious... I like that rendering and message better than easy reflexive morality.
