Of course you're right about the writer, but in general, I agree that Superman is always going to be the more aloof parent by virtue of the fact that he's an ideal, not a person. There's that great rant in Kill Bill Vol. 2 where Bill says that Superman is the only hero unlike the others by virtue of starting as the super and having to dress up like the mundane. (For all that Batman's true face is his cape and cowl, Bruce Wayne started as Bruce Wayne and became Batman.) It's always been hard for me to relate to Superman, and I think that really points at why.
It becomes a question of your parenting ethics: is a benevolent, absent father figure better than a demanding, omnipresent one? Obviously, neither are ideal--you'd want something sort of in between (but as far from absent or demanding as possible). I guess the defensiveness that popped up stems from the fact that Batman is constantly taken to task for how he raised the kids in his care, whereas all the kids to come out of the Superman school are more or less perfect and well-adjusted no matter what Superman did or didn't do right as a "father." To my mind, that's totally unbelievable--that they wouldn't hardly resent him at all as they seem not to do.
It brings me back to ages of the ideal reader for each hero. I think Superman is fundamentally a hero for younger readers. He's not exactly a challenging character to get behind; Superman is always right, always the hero in the spotlight, always strong, always amazing, always moral. Batman, on the other hand, is a better hero for teenagers and above because you get into the question of justice more than just right vs wrong. There are questions of morality, of responsibility with Batman, and although he is very smart, he isn't always right. He's also a hair's breadth from insanity, which, um, I don't remember seeing too often with Superman. There seems to be more nuance with Batman. It still varies with the writers, of course, but that's my general impression.
no subject
It becomes a question of your parenting ethics: is a benevolent, absent father figure better than a demanding, omnipresent one? Obviously, neither are ideal--you'd want something sort of in between (but as far from absent or demanding as possible). I guess the defensiveness that popped up stems from the fact that Batman is constantly taken to task for how he raised the kids in his care, whereas all the kids to come out of the Superman school are more or less perfect and well-adjusted no matter what Superman did or didn't do right as a "father." To my mind, that's totally unbelievable--that they wouldn't hardly resent him at all as they seem not to do.
It brings me back to ages of the ideal reader for each hero. I think Superman is fundamentally a hero for younger readers. He's not exactly a challenging character to get behind; Superman is always right, always the hero in the spotlight, always strong, always amazing, always moral. Batman, on the other hand, is a better hero for teenagers and above because you get into the question of justice more than just right vs wrong. There are questions of morality, of responsibility with Batman, and although he is very smart, he isn't always right. He's also a hair's breadth from insanity, which, um, I don't remember seeing too often with Superman. There seems to be more nuance with Batman. It still varies with the writers, of course, but that's my general impression.