question about superman, Clark Kent and Lois Lane

[The Question]

Originally Posted by TruerToTheCore

Everyone should read:



complete story: http://supermanthrutheages.com/tales4/home/

It's a good story, but I think it reinforces the idea that Clark Kent is just as much who he really is as Superman. Pete Ross kind of comes off looking like an idiot for thinking otherwise, really.

[epc11223]

well it looks like the costume debate has been brought here with the whole "classic/traditional" is the only right way. this is so absurd and i'm not surprised it's the same people trying to force their opinions on others. there is no one interpretation of superman that is right. superman and any other characters that are fictional are up for interpretation. many people enjoy the 80s teenage mutant ninja turtles but the cartoon from 2003 was much closer to the initial version of the turtles, and guess, what neither are wrong. this is all subjective which i'm surprised that so many people have difficulty understanding. i personally like singers version of the character. you have kal-el from krypton, clark from the farm, and superman. he has three distinct personalities but ultimately he's the one that was raised by the kents. that's how he was grown up and had his values instilled through him.

as a teacher and working with children, you're environment is so important to how you behave when you grow up. but again, superman was adopted and he's always wanting to know his birth parents. genetics are important as well but his environment gives him his values. in my opinion, thats why he wants to be superman. he knows that his genetics gives him such power to help people because of the values johnathan and martha kent instilled in him. he also has a third persona to help protect the people he cares about. as much wrong as smallville/superman returns had, i really think they have the dichotomy of superman persona. superman can't act the same way as clark kent but i think george reeves and dean cain had too much of a difference with their personality.

but this is all SUBJECTIVE. NOONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG AND IT'S REALLY RIDICULOUS WHEN PEOPLE THINK THERE IS ONLY ONE VERSION OF THE CHARACTER THAT IS RIGHT. IF YOU LIKE PRE CRISIS, GOOD FOR YOU; YOU ARE NEITHER RIGHT OR WRONG. THERE IS NO, ONE RIGHT ANSWER. IF ALL OF A SUDDEN SUPERMAN DID BECOME A GAY SUPERHERO, IT'S NOT RIGHT OR WRONG, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION. YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by The Question

It's a good story, but I think it reinforces the idea that Clark Kent is just as much who he really is as Superman. Pete Ross kind of comes off looking like an idiot for thinking otherwise, really.

The main point is that Clark is a different individual from Superman, that he is an act, yes, but he is such a good act that he has taken on his own existence. My issue with the Post-Crisis Superman is not really that Clark Kent was the "real" persona, it's that there was no Clark Kent at all. He was just Superman with a pair of glasses.

And I don't think Pete comes off stupid at all, because he's known forever that Clark was really Superman. I don't think most people-even his friends-know exactly how sentimental Superman is. That's part of what makes Superman so interesting-everyone that knows him loves him and thinks the world of him, but no one really completely knows him. Losing his Ma and Pa hurt Superman more than anyone knew, although Lois can feel that something happened when he was Superboy that was tragic.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Superman is a character people either get or they don't. Cain gets the character.

Really there's two different characters-38-86 and 86-2002 or so. Pick the one you like, or like both.

Lumping the Golden Age and the Silver Age versions as one is not accurate. The Golden Age Siegel Superman was quite different than the Silver Age Weisinger Superman, so much so that they were actually two different characters Pre-Crisis. In fact the Golden Age Superman was the Earth Two Superman and the Silver Age/Bronze Age Superman was the Earth One Superman.

The Post-Crisis Byrne Man of Steel Superman was closer to the Earth Two Superman in a number of ways. The Earth Two Superman was the sole survivor of his Krypton, and the Post-Crisis Superman was the sole survivor of his Krypton. The Earth Two Superman had more limitations to his powers than the Earth One Superman, and the Post-Crisis Superman had more limitations to his powers than the Earth One Superman had. He couldn't time travel, he couldn't move planets around, or survive without any air indefinitely, he had to noticeably strain and struggle against super-powered foes. The Earth Two Superman was married to his Lois, and the Post-Crisis Superman was married to his Lois.

As for the Clark Kent debate: There are really two Clark Kent's. Clark Kent (the real person) that his foster parents raised and Lana knew, and the glasses disguised Clark Kent. In The Man of Steel, Clark Kent, the real person, creates the new Clark Kent as a disguise to hide his super self with glasses, his hair slicked back and stoops a tad.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

Lumping the Golden Age and the Silver Age versions as one is not accurate. The Golden Age Siegel Superman was quite different than the Silver Age Weisinger Superman, so much so that they were actually two different characters Pre-Crisis. In fact the Golden Age Superman was the Earth Two Superman and the Silver Age/Bronze Age Superman was the Earth One Superman.

The Pre-Crisis Byrne Man of Steel Superman was closer to the Earth Two Superman in a number of ways. The Earth Two Superman was the sole survivor of his Krypton, and the Pre-Crisis Superman was the sole survivor of his Krypton. The Earth Two Superman had more limitations to his powers than the Earth One Superman, and the Pre-Crisis Superman had more limitations to his powers than the Earth One Superman had. He couldn't time travel, he couldn't move planets around, or survive without any air indefinitely, he had to noticeably strain and struggle against super-powered foes. The Earth Two Superman was married to his Lois, and the Pre-Crisis Superman was married to his Lois.

As for the Clark Kent debate: There are really two Clark Kent's. Clark Kent (the real person) that his foster parents raised and Lana knew, and the glasses disguised Clark Kent. In The Man of Steel, Clark Kent, the real person, creates the new Clark Kent as a disguise to hide his super self with glasses, his hair slicked back and stoops a tad.

I have been told by mods that we were to put each other on ignore and not respond to one another's posts, so all will say is I disagree and leave it at that. Please place me on your ignore list, though.

[theMan-Bat]

I haven't been told by moderators to ignore you. This post is civil, in no way an insult directed at you or your favorite writers, neither were my previous responses to you. I've said before that I don't put anyone on an ignore list, and I haven't been told to do so, but you are free to ignore me if you like. You sent me a private message on January 12th, saying:

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

No more back and forth about Miller, I will be adding you to my ignore list so that I do not get in any sort of trouble. I simply cannot discuss the man in a civil manner because I feel he has done incredible damage to characters that I care deeply about. I do respect your knowledge-usually fans of modern stuff regard the classics as garbage, but you do not and I appreciate that.

Sorry about the rudeness,

Kurosawa

You said you cannot discuss Frank Miller in a civil manner, but this post isn't about Frank Miller. I guess you cannot discuss anything with me in a civil manner since you say moderators told you to ignore me indefinitely. I will say that I post on these boards to share information and state my opinion, not to fight.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

I haven't been told by moderators to ignore you. This post is civil, in no way an insult directed at you or your favorite writers, neither were my previous responses to you. I've said before that I don't put anyone on an ignore list, and haven't I been told to do so, but you are free to ignore me if you like. You sent me a private message on January 12th, saying:

You said you cannot discuss Frank Miller in a civil manner, but this post isn't about Frank Miller. I guess you cannot discuss anything with me in a civil manner since you say moderators told you to ignore me indefinitely. I will say that I post on these boards to share information and state my opinion, not to fight.

No, I was just trying to do what they told me to do so I wouldn't have any issues.

I will say this in response to your post: the Earth-Two Superman was not the sole survivor of his Krypton, as Power Girl is his cousin. And his powers grew over time until when they were at their peak, he and the Earth-One Superman we equals, then later on his powers waned slightly. But even at the end in COIE he was powerful enough to knock Kal-El out with a sneak attack and was able to destroy the Anti-Monitor...not that I accept that story as canonical, but DC does of course. I personally disregard all DC and Marvel comics from 1980-on, or that is to say I am willing to disregard stories from 1980-on and stories before 1980 I choose to accept and explain away if there are points I have issues with. But that is just my personal canon.

[Parker Wayne]

I think the huge issue at hand here is that I think there is a disparity between everyone because I think there are two questions being asked at once. The first is "Which Superman is the true character?" and "Should this interpretation be the only absolutist version of the character?"

Before I answer these questions, I want to explain that when it comes to art, art pre-20th century used to have more of an authority to it. This extended to most works of art, including literature. There are some notable exceptions, most notably Romeo and Juliet. The Tragedy of Romeus and Juliet, which was a story by Arthur Brooke, was adapted into a play by William Shakespeare, who made it his own and is seen by most as the creator of Romeo and Juliet, not Brooke.

In the 20th Century, especially the latter half, there was a feeling, especially with the rise of photography and more notably film, that made theorists look into authority, and one of the aspects in which art has changed, especially in the 20th century is that more and more works of art were starting to not only lack a single authority (and thus becoming a more collaborative effort), but more and more works of art started to become accessible to all people.

What does this have to with Superman? Well, comics, along with movies and rock and roll, has become one of those 20th century media that has helped change the way we see art do the constant change in authority and reinterpretation. Superman, like other characters has gone through a multitude of changes.

Now which Superman is the true character? If we were going by the old standards of art, it is the original creators, Siegel and Shuster. I am inclined to believe that as I believe that original creator should be true authority on it.

But the new ways of thinking, seeing and interpreting art can answer the second question. Should Siegel and Shuster's original interpretation be the absolutist interpretation? Absolutely not. What we learned about art in the last century is that a character can be reinterpreted and redone many different times, best examined with pop culture James Bond (Not only with movie and novel, but also between authors too), Dracula, etc., that in the era of post-modernism, works of art can be redone to the point that we can have a add (but not remove the original authors) authority to a work of art.

It's the same situation with Shakespeare. He took Brooke's story, added much more to it, and is interpreted as the most popular version of the story. Brooke is still an authority on it, but Shakespeare is now too.

Kurosawa, I do not wish to offend and I'm sure that when new artists and writer are added, they do not wish to offend, but only tell their stories, and thus in turn, tell their interpretation of the character. Batman today is largely different from Superman also, and yet most people believe later interpretations of Bob Kane and Bill Finger's character (the one that doesn't shoot or smoke) as their Batman. Notice I did not say "the Batman", as if we were going by absolutist notions, then Kane's original Batman is the Batman. Still, what is absolute by all means is that Kane and Finger are and will always be the true authorities of Batman, and it is the same with Superman.

And as stated before, Superman has changed before 1986, so the notion that 1937-1986 is the true character is fully opinion, and that's fine. But to say that Superman from 1937-1986 is absolutely the true character as those writers also made changes to Superman's work. Sure there were more expansive changes, but more people have been added to authority before that point in 1986.

I'm not trying to be insulting, and I'm explaining all this in a calming manner, so I wish for the same respect with replies. And this is all opinion just like everyone's posts in here are.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

I think the huge issue at hand here is that I think there is a disparity between everyone because I think there are two questions being asked at once. The first is "Which Superman is the true character?" and "Should this interpretation be the only absolutist version of the character?"

Before I answer these questions, I want to explain that when it comes to art, art pre-20th century used to have more of an authority to it. This extended to most works of art, including literature. There are some notable exceptions, most notably Romeo and Juliet. The Tragedy of Romeus and Juliet, which was a story by Arthur Brooke, was adapted into a play by William Shakespeare, who made it his own and is seen by most as the creator of Romeo and Juliet, not Brooke.

In the 20th Century, especially the latter half, there was a feeling, especially with the rise of photography and more notably film, that made theorists look into authority, and one of the aspects in which art has changed, especially in the 20th century is that more and more works of art were starting to not only lack a single authority (and thus becoming a more collaborative effort), but more and more works of art started to become accessible to all people.

What does this have to with Superman? Well, comics, along with movies and rock and roll, has become one of those 20th century media that has helped change the way we see art do the constant change in authority and reinterpretation. Superman, like other characters has gone through a multitude of changes.

Now which Superman is the true character? If we were going by the old standards of art, it is the original creators, Siegel and Shuster. I am inclined to believe that as I believe that original creator should be true authority on it.

But the new ways of thinking, seeing and interpreting art can answer the second question. Should Siegel and Shuster's original interpretation be the absolutist interpretation? Absolutely not. What we learned about art in the last century is that a character can be reinterpreted and redone many different times, best examined with pop culture James Bond (Not only with movie and novel, but also between authors too), Dracula, etc., that in the era of post-modernism, works of art can be redone to the point that we can have a add (but not remove the original authors) authority to a work of art.

It's the same situation with Shakespeare. He took Brooke's story, added much more to it, and is interpreted as the most popular version of the story. Brooke is still an authority on it, but Shakespeare is now too.

Kurosawa, I do not wish to offend and I'm sure that when new artists and writer are added, they do not wish to offend, but only tell their stories, and thus in turn, tell their interpretation of the character. Batman today is largely different from Superman also, and yet most people believe later interpretations of Bob Kane and Bill Finger's character (the one that doesn't shoot or smoke) as their Batman. Notice I did not say "the Batman", as if we were going by absolutist notions, then Kane's original Batman is the Batman. Still, what is absolute by all means is that Kane and Finger are and will always be the true authorities of Batman, and it is the same with Superman.

And as stated before, Superman has changed before 1986, so the notion that 1937-1986 is the true character is fully opinion, and that's fine. But to say that Superman from 1937-1986 is absolutely the true character as those writers also made changes to Superman's work. Sure there were more expansive changes, but more people have been added to authority before that point in 1986.

I'm not trying to be insulting, and I'm explaining all this in a calming manner, so I wish for the same respect with replies. And this is all opinion just like everyone's posts in here are.

No offense taken, it's just that when the original creators intents and purposes have been clearly stated-and in Superman's case, they have been-then they should be the first thing considered. It's not like Superman was created hundreds of years ago under debatable circumstances. He was created 70 years ago by men who were still alive into most of our lifetimes. It's not open to debate what Siegel and Shuster were trying to say with the character.


I find it arrogant that John Byrne, for example, decided that he could better determine who Superman and Clark Kent are and should be than Jerry Siegel, who created the character in the first place. I see a huge difference between characters evolving and growing and characters being changed through the use of retcons to alter not only who they are now, but who they always were. For example, Byrne stereotypes anyone from a rural area as some sort of Jethro/Lil Abner/Lennie Small character when in fact a person can be from a farming community and still be a nerd. And there are significant parts of the Clark Kent that Superman grew up posing as that were nerdy-he was into science, he excelled at school, he was always polite and clean-cut, etc. Superman is not at heart some sort of hick farmer. And neither was Jonathan Kent. Being a farmer does not mean you are some sort of hick stereotype.

Now look at how Grant Morrison is reinventing Superman. Yes, the costume is not the classic costume, and yes it is horrid, but storywise he is taking what Siegel did as a template and he is updating it for modern times. He's not saying that he knows better than Jerry Siegel what Superman should be, he's just putting a 2012 coat of paint on Siegel's 1934 (created) and 1938 (published) model. And today's Batman is very much the same thing-he is what Bill Finger and Bob Kane intended for him to be, just in a modern setting. And I think returning Batman to his roots is a key part of why he has flourished over the last 25 years. And I feel taking Superman so far from his roots is why he waned as a character for most of that time. I don't think it's a coincidence.

[theMan-Bat]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

No, I was just trying to do what they told me to do so I wouldn't have any issues.

I will say this in response to your post: the Earth-Two Superman was not the sole survivor of his Krypton, as Power Girl is his cousin. And his powers grew over time until when they were at their peak, he and the Earth-One Superman we equals, then later on his powers waned slightly. But even at the end in COIE he was powerful enough to knock Kal-El out with a sneak attack and was able to destroy the Anti-Monitor...not that I accept that story as canonical, but DC does of course. I personally disregard all DC and Marvel comics from 1980-on, or that is to say I am willing to disregard stories from 1980-on and stories before 1980 I choose to accept and explain away if there are points I have issues with. But that is just my personal canon.

Ah, I forgot that they had Power Girl as Earth-Two Superman's cousin, and not as his daughter, like Huntress was Earth-Two Batman's daughter. So he was nearly the sole survivor, he was the sole male survivor. I'm not a fan of Crisis on Infinite Earths, either. DC also increased the Post-Crisis Superman's powers over time.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by theMan-Bat

Ah, I forgot that they had Power Girl as Earth-Two Superman's cousin, and not as his daughter, like Huntress was Earth-Two Batman's daughter. So he was nearly the sole survivor, he was the sole male survivor. I'm not a fan of Crisis on Infinite Earths, either. DC also increased the Post-Crisis Superman's powers over time.

Yeah, Conway actually wanted Power Girl to be his daughter but I guess DC was nervous to breach the "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" issue.

And later on the Post-Crisis Superman got pretty powerful-he wasn't moving planets but he was chucking moons around. That was Morrison, though, and his policy of "everything is canon" is probably part of why his power was boosted. That and it's pretty much inevitable that any version of Superman will get stronger and stronger as the years pass.

And yeah, COIE is a story that I dislike with some moments that I will grant were skillfully portrayed, and Perez is an excellent artist and a good storyteller. But mostly it fixed something that just wasn't broken.

[Stallion9979]

As someone that has read Pre and Post Crisis Superman, I can honestly say I prefer Clark as the real person and Superman as a heroic identity instead of Superman being the real person. To me is makes him more of a hero.

"Clark is who I am and Superman is what I can do."

He's not Superman simply because he is an advanced superpowered alien. He's a hero because he was raised with good moral values and used those values to help others. Johnathan and Martha Kent took in an orphan child and instilled a strong sense of good in him that becomes even more reinforced by the discovery of his true heritage.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Stallion9979

As someone that has read Pre and Post Crisis Superman, I can honestly say I prefer Clark as the real person and Superman as a heroic identity instead of Superman being the real person. To me is makes him more of a hero.

"Clark is who I am and Superman is what I can do."

He's not Superman simply because he is an advanced superpowered alien. He's a hero because he was raised with good moral values and used those values to help others. Johnathan and Martha Kent took in an orphan child and instilled a strong sense of good in him that becomes even more reinforced by the discovery of his true heritage.

The problem with that is it basically eliminates Clark Kent as a separate character from Superman, making Clark essentially just the name Superman uses when not in uniform-or Superman as the name Clark uses while in uniform, to be more precise. No one's saying that the Kent's guidance isn't where his ethics come from (although certain parts of his code, like the no-killing part) are also strong parts of Kryptonian culture, but without the Clark-by Clark I mean the nerdy, nebbish Clark-you just have one persona, and that's not what Siegel and Shuster intended. And Clark is them-you take that Clark away, you take Jerry and Joe out. Siegel explicitly said Clark was them, and really him.

Look at what is always expected of Superman: perfection across the board. Power, moral righteousness, bravery, brilliance. Imagine perfection being the standard of what is expected of you from the universe. Then look at Clark: timid, soft, sickly, nerdy, harmless, but also kind and decent. Can Superman be blamed for wanting to escape what is expected of him by inventing Clark Kent? Who wouldn't want to get away, at least for a while, when perfection and godhood is the standard you are held to? Clark Kent may be what keeps Superman from cracking up. He's certainly Superman's most prized possession.

[Stallion9979]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

The problem with that is it basically eliminates Clark Kent as a separate character from Superman, making Clark essentially just the name Superman uses when not in uniform-or Superman as the name Clark uses while in uniform, to be more precise.

But that is exactly what I am saying. They aren't separate characters. Clark creating Superman as a way to save people and at the same time being able to live a normal life is precisely where I am going with it.

Think about it this way...if you woke up tomorrow and found out you had Superman's abilities, would you no longer be who you are or would those powers be an extension of who you are? The natural answer would be you are still you but you can do this...

That's what I like about that particular version of Clark. He is an orphan that was taken in and raised and one day found out all these other things about himself and what he could do...it doesn't mean his life as Clark Kent was a lie and now you're just Superman in a suit with glasses.

It means you are who you are and now you can use these abilities to be the hero you wanna be. In Clark's case he just has to play an act as a trade off for the ability to do that and still have a normal life.

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

...without the Clark-by Clark I mean the nerdy, nebbish Clark-you just have one persona, and that's not what Siegel and Shuster intended. And Clark is them-you take that Clark away, you take Jerry and Joe out. Siegel explicitly said Clark was them, and really him.

IMHO you are being a bit close-minded because a character like Superman should be able to evolve over the course of almost 75 years. While that might have been Siegel and Shuster's original intention, that doesn't mean that it can't change and become something more.

In my mind I use simple logic...I am who I am no matter...as I said before, if I woke up tomorrow with SuperPowers the dynamic doesn't just flip...it just adds a new dimension to what I can do...Clark Kent is who he is...Superman is what he can do...

[Darthphere]

He's banned now, so it was kind of pointless to respond.

[The Question]

Oh wow. How'd that happen?

[Darthphere]

Someone preferred Post Crisis Superman.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by The Question

Oh wow. How'd that happen?

Kurosawa being Kurosawa. It was going to happen.

[hopefuldreamer]

Wow... That's just... Wow!

Kuro, gone?

[Czar Colossus]

Jeeez...that's a bit harsh. I've never found him to be offensive. Speaking from experience, I think we can all be a little "thin skinned" at times and take someone the wrong way, especially when it's written rather than spoken. (I made that mistake...sorry). I'm going to miss reading his comments. Whether I agreed or disagreed with him, I found him intelligent and interesting. I hope he's allowed back eventually.

[Darthphere]

Well I would substitute intelligent with insane but yes, he will be missed....somewhat.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

Well I would substitute intelligent with insane but yes, he will be missed....somewhat.

He's kind of like the negative stereotype of the uptight nerd who takes their fandom way to serious combined with the negative stereotype of the bitter, lonely old man who's always yelling at kids to get off his lawn, but a real human being, which is both baffling and disturbing.

[epc11223]

not that it's any of my business, but i'm wondering what the straw that broke the camels back as far as kuro being banned. he was always oppositional to mostly everyone, and in my opinion somewhat ignorant to other people's point of view, but he never really seemed disrespectful to members.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by epc11223

not that it's any of my business, but i'm wondering what the straw that broke the camels back as far as kuro being banned. he was always oppositional to mostly everyone, and in my opinion somewhat ignorant to other people's point of view, but he never really seemed disrespectful to members.

Yeah he was. He didn't call people by slurs or anything, but he often ranted that people weren't "real" Superman fans because they weren't morally offended by interpretations of the character that weren't favorable. Because somehow it's immoral to paint a normally good guy character as an ******* for the purpose of being fun or interesting.

[epc11223]

Originally Posted by The Question

Yeah he was. He didn't call people by slurs or anything, but he often ranted that people weren't "real" Superman fans because they weren't morally offended by interpretations of the character that weren't favorable. Because somehow it's immoral to paint a normally good guy character as an ******* for the purpose of being fun or interesting.

Believe me, i was never a fan of his and we often disagreed on many topics; but with that said he used to generalize people and not directly call anyone out. I don't think he ever said "you are truly not a superman fan bc.......". I always thought you had to directly insult people to get banned. I won't be losing any sleep over him being banned, I'm just curious what the final straw was that got him banned from the site. While we often disagreed, I did like his passion for Superman. It's just sad that he didn't realize that so many others have such a fondness, love and respect for the character as well.