Mark Millar's Many Thoughts On Superman

[SuperDaniel]

That was a pitch involving three writers. Grant Morrison and Mark Waid as well. Don't go around handing undue credit.

ALL Star Superman is Grant Morrison's baby.

I know. It is his baby and one of the best Superman stories i`ve ever read.

 

[sdc10]

Im actually kinda excited about this I truly think Superman needs a reboot. I think something very good can come out of it especially if Morrison, Waid, and Millar are somewhat involved. I just hope however this secret director has his own vision as well that can meld with Millar's to create something great.

 

[DavidTyler]

David, have you read All Star Superman?

I agree that the Kents shouldn`t die. I think there is no need for tragedy when it comes to the creation of Superman. I believe the way it was on Superman for all seasons was great.

In the planet forums, a poster called Enlighted one had a very interesting take on Superman. I`ll see if i can find it to post it here.

I actually read ALL the Superman titles.

And the decision to not kill off the Kents actually came from the fans. The Superboy books let the fans get to know and like them and they, the fans, made pleas to DC not to kill them off. A wise decision since they were cancelling the Superboy book.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I actually dont care about the Era. It`s just small details to me. A great Superman story can be written using post-crisis or pre-crisis.

Whatever happend to the man of tomorrow, Must there be a Superman?, All Star Superman, For the man who has everything are one of the best Superman stories ever written and they are all Pre-crisis.

THE ONLY THING I DONT WANT TO SEE EVER ON SCREEN IS DONNER`S LUTHOR. EVER!!!

 

[ReTrO JuNkIe 42]

IN YOUR OPINION. Please qualify your responses. There are a healthy number of us here at the Hype who will argue the exact opposite. A lot of us feel that Byrne got it spot on and Ordway & co. really did a great job of fleshing it out. Simplified is good if you're setting up a foundation. It needs to be direct and clear so that others can build on it.




REALLY?!!! So Jerry Ordway, Roger Stern, Marv Wolfman ... they never were Superman Fans? Wow... would you please write to them and let them know because I'm pretty sure they'll be as shocked by that statement as I am. And, since you seem to have the amazing ability to read minds would you please tell us all who Obama is picking for his VP? We're all dying to know that as well.




You seem to have this fixation with the phrase 'farmboy'. Is this a prejudice against people of other cultures or just a bad attempt to belittle a concept?
Since you bring this up again later in your missive, I'll address it then.

Hercules and Samson? Yes. But we've progressed passed simple concepts such as those. In fact, new presentations of Hercules and Samson reflect current character writing concepts. Depth and no longer infallible.

Again, those are just simple foundations for other to build on. Much like what Byrne and Wolfman did with Superman.



Superficial Cliche? Hmmmm.... and what was her father before that? Want me to fill in the blank for you? He was never spoken of. She was a fait accompli. She arose full blown with almost no background except for a sister that Jimmy was paired up with.

And, really, what's so cliche about him being a military career man? I have a large amount of friends who are just that? Everyone has parents ... why shouldn't hers reflect the personality she was given by the writers? Who should she have had as a father? What would you have done with the character? Cliche. I believe if Byrne had made him a green grocer from Syracuse NY with a bad heart and a penchant for picking up strays, you would have still had issues with it because it was Byrne. But, to qualify, that's just my belief.

Oh, and as to writing women.. I've said over and over that Byrne is an excellent idea man and was in no sense any competition for people like Moore. Waid, on the other hand, is very weak when it comes to concepts but strong with characterizations. The two would compliment each others styles if Waid could accept that only the dialogue and main plot would be left to him while the concepts would have to be Byrnes.




Oh, you mean I'm not a man because my parents aren't dead? I'm not a man because my family serves a similar purpose in my life ... to be a sounding board and to give me advice with tough decisions? To be, in essence, my family? I'm sorry for the way you view that situation.

And Clark doesn't run home to his mum and dad every time he has to made a decision. Byrne realized that the death of the Kents was pretty meaningless and all the writers on Superboy ( a comic series you probably never heard of about the younger days of Superman ) discovered that the Kents were interesting characters and made for better stories. They also served by making a more organic way of showing Clarks real personality and saving on meaningless plot exposition by having Clark tell them what was happening instead. Byrne thought that keeping them alive served the character better than killing them off and so do I.




First Batman/Bruce Wayne IS a hero in our out of costume. Period.

And to finally address your 'Farmboy' remark:

You seem to have a superficial understanding of what I spoke of earlier about the real core of the character being Clark. First ... the fact that Clark grew up on a farm in no way means that he's a simple farmboy. He is, at his core, the straightforward, compassionate, hardworking individual the Kents raised him to be. That has nothing to do with whether he was raised on a farm or, as in the Superboy comics, in the Kent's little grocery store. You grow up but you never lose who you are. At least, most people don't. You don't lose the influences that made you YOU. That's why Clark is the core and 'Superman' & 'Daily Planet associate Clark' are permutations of that personality. Neither is a lie and neither is a falsehood. They are simply different sides of the same personality. Clark in Metropolis is quiet and reserved. Clark as Superman is direct and a man of action who often takes charge in a crisis.

Putting on a costume did NOT make Clark a hero. Clark would have been a hero no matter the Superman moniker or not.

And his powers developed over time. Another thing Byrne was spot on about. There is no concievable way the Kents could have realistically raised a baby they couldn't control. He would have needed to NOT have those superpowers until he spent sufficient time under our Yellow Sun.




Now this is something I can agree with you on ... with the exception of your comment about Byrne doing it to mirror his own history. England was not a dystopia. That's where Byrne was borne.

And the immigrant angle is right from Siegel and Shuster. It's an integral part of what they created.



Uh.... NO he wasn't. He was a baby. He didn't remember a lot. I grew up with the silver age version of the character. He wasn't a toddler. And Byrne's statement in the final chapter of MOS rings truer than anything any other Superscribe has written. To paraphrase: 'Krypton made me Super but Earth made me human'. His Kryptonian worthless? I think it's how you're interpreting it. I look at it that he learned from his Kryptonian heritage what was important about the human race by both the example of his birth father and the repression Jor-el saved him from.

But let's not gloss over this. Byrne's Krypton had a rich and vibrant history before it reached it's final days. It was a slow and gradual process from that life embracing past to the dystopia it became. It became an interesting story in itself - as opposed to the Flash Gordon Krypton of the 50's and 60's or the confusing mess of Birthright.




Are you really saying that firemen, police officers, and farmboys are less than good because that's exactly how that reads.

I don't want Superman to be perfect. I want him to stumble at times. I want him to be angry at other times. I want a Superman who isn't god-like in his wisdom and abilities. I want a Superman that I can identify with and interesting stories can be written about.




Again, you read minds? and... again... you need to qualify that 'we are right' statement.

you're the man david t: i agree with you 100% on all ur remarks

p.s. he is batman in or out the costume Bruce wayne died the night his parents did

 

[SBrooks1]

What we need is a "Superman Begins" type film that throws caution to the wind and goes balls to the wall with Supes fighting a real villian who poses a real threat.

 

[AllThingsComic]

Singer screwed up SR screwed up X-men and sucks as a director.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Found it:

Written by the Enlightened One poster on the Planet Forums:

"The most important thing to realize about Clark Kent's journey to Superman is that it is necessarily a story of transformation (as are all great myths). Becoming Superman in any iteration is a profound moment of transcendence for the character, and cannot be played simply as “the next logical step”…because it isn’t. If you truly want to keep things believable, you have to acknowledge the fact that deciding to fashion a costume of cape and tights and, no matter how powerful, adopt the entire world as a kind of surrogate to your own larger than life fantasy figure IS NOT A NORMAL DECISION. There's absolutely nothing believable about it, and for that decision to occur, it must then be motivated and surrounded by utterly unbelievable circumstances. The most direct and obvious example being powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

Let’s get one thing straight right now, as far as relatable goes: There is nothing for any of us to relate to in the sum of how Superman would exist in the world. I would say we could not even begin to comprehend simultaneously the ability to see across the entire EM spectrum, to hear concurrently every sound within a hundred mile radius, to stare to the ends of the Earth, to stand unfazed in a nuclear explosion or the depths of an Arctic ocean, to burn metal to slag with a glance, to knock down redwoods with a sigh. Think of the emotions, the questions, the various mysteries and understandings evoked by any single instance of experiencing one of those abilities: studying pictures of deep space from the Hubble, hearing subsonic whalesongs translated via technology, seeing the microwave imprint of the Big Bang via infrared photography, staring out over cloudtops from a plane 30000 feet up. What would it truly be like to experience every one of those things, every day, merely by thinking it?

It is irrevocably (for at least the immediate future) beyond human perspective. And that is exceedingly important to making Superman’s character interesting and believable.

You so often hear the chorus of Byrne supporters chanting their mantra of "he was raised by humans exclusively, so he must be exclusively human", but the truth is that argument is only valid if he is able to contextualize that human rearing through the lens of his powers. Internalization is the most vital process in learning anything, but is particularly important and complex concerning lessons of socialization: morality, value, spirituality, the concepts of free will, life, death, time and space; collectively, one’s place in the world. These are all incredibly fleeting and difficult concepts (hell, a huge number of people go to their grave never grasping the truth of any of them), and only begin to make sense and hold meaning when an individual can apply them to experiences undertaken.

Dr. Spock (the revolutionary developmental psychologist, not the Vulcan navigator, natch) describes the scenario in terms of parents as a buoy, and life as an ocean; we can learn about surviving that ocean all we want while safe on the buoy, but eventually we all actually have to swim out into the water, and it is only then that we learn whether those lessons were correct or complete. And it is the best parents (which of course the Kents are) who provide that buoy, steadfastly bobbing amidst the churning waves as a safe haven to which children can return should the tempest of life become too overwhelming, while simultaneously allowing more and more slack on the lifeline. Our parents impart lessons on all of us as we grow, but each and every one of us internalizes those lessons differently to construct a unique worldview. We all independently confirm what our parents teach us, be it through observation, reason, or actually testing those lessons. In short, we do not and cannot turn out exactly as our parents intend; ultimately, we are all a permutation of learning and experience. This is no different for ClarkKent.

So consider again the incredible disparity between how (if not what) a human and a fully-powered Kryptonian experience. To a Clark Kent raised with the scope of super-powers, his rearing as the son of humble, hard-working, pragmatic farm folk would be internalized accordingly. Clark would be able to examine, reference, cross-reference, and verify anything they tell him about the world through that lens. Concordantly, he could apply their lessons to a set of extraordinary formative experiences defined by his abilities. And since child-rearing is a two-way street after all, Jon and Martha would necessarily tailor their strategies, interactions, and relationships with young Clark to his incredibly unique worldview, at least to the best of their ability.

In this scenario then, we ultimately arrive at ClarkKent as a young man more or less already the Superman he will become. He knows and understands the world as an alien superbeing through the context of humble, pragmatic, Midwestern farm life. He has come to terms with all the amazing and terrifying horizons opened up for him by his powers. I think the most important thing to realize at this stage is that he is not searching for anything. He’s comfortable. He knows who he is. In some versions of the story, he’s already been Superboy for some time. So he is not exactly poised for a transformation.

Hold that thought, we’ll return to it.

So what of a Clark Kent who gradually grows into his power? In some sense, Byrne got it right that this situation is one which perhaps resonates stronger with the audience, and provides the character himself a far richer understanding of the world. This version is a Superman who knows what it is to be human; not just as an outsider experiencing our world through hyper-senses, but quite literally as one of us. It’s how he lived all the way up until high school. It creates an interesting dynamic because this Clark Kent would not be able to internalize the lessons of his formative years via the lense of super-powers – he WOULD just be the humble, good-natured Midwestern farm son of Jon and Martha Kent.

But from that point on, Byrne gets it oh-so-oh-so wrong.

The way a human couldn’t possibly comprehend what it would be like to have that Kryptonian perspective thrust upon you? That’s what happens to Clark. At puberty.

Suddenly, at a time when worldview and personality are just beginning to crystallize, and self-assuredness is taking its first foothold at the tail end of awkwardness, everything this boy knows of the world – all the conclusions he’s drawn, the things he takes for granted or ignores, the pathways and promises he recognizes – is torn apart. All at once the world is infinitesimally smaller, and the universe inexplicably grander. His very sense what it means to be human is thrown into question. All the things he’s learned and known throughout his childhood must be re-examined from a wholly alien perspective. It is the loss of innocence on a cosmic scale.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Part 2:

At this point, it only makes sense to interject with a discussion of the “burden” of Superman’s powers. Regardless of how overwhelming and frightening the onset of such god-like powers would be to an otherwise normal teenager, there is no burden in the ability to fly, or to be impervious to all harm. These abilities are the ultimate wish fulfillment, and should carry for the character a certain unbridled joy, not sorrow at one’s “differentness”. The imposition of whiny teenage angst on young Clark Kent has been absolutely inexcusable in recent years, if only for the blatant incongruity of a teenager longing to GIVE UP the powers of flight, invulnerability, and super-strength.

Yet Byrne’s happy-go-lucky, “all I need to cope is one quick chat with my Pa” depiction of the newly empowered Clark rings just as false.

As much as he may try to fight it at first, the onset of Superman’s powers do irrevocably alter ClarkKent’s existence. Through the revelations of his new senses and abilities, the human condition – in all its glory and ugliness, with all its wonderful achievements and grotesque failings – is laid bare for his discovery. How can people be so cruel? How can people ignore such suffering? Why do people have such fear? Why can no one see the raw, naked, celestial beauty of everything on this planet? To no one else are these questions more immediate and clear. And as much as that weight may seem a burden, to long to be normal when you are quite patently extraordinary is a cowardly, egocentric decision. It is not the feeling of a young man with the moral character of Jon and Martha Kent’s son. Of course Clark Kent cannot just take this life-altering experience in stride, but it is decidedly counter to the nature of Superman to take the selfish position of wishing to be rid of what the powers reveal to him. There is a third alternative. Instead of rejecting the implication of his power, he must embrace it. With a soul molded from the moral fiber of a Midwestern youth raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent, Clark opens himself to the world in an active quest for understanding – mastering his physical powers, learning all they have to teach him, searching for a way to use them – he embraces all of it. He is longing for something MORE. He is primed for transformation. That is the resonant, mythical, most logical path for the Post-Crisis Superman.

But what of our young Pre-Crisis Superman, never hit with such a grand epiphany, having learned to exist with these powers since birth?

Indeed, when we last left our discussion of the Superman who has known his powers since birth, we had left a confident, comfortable, secure teen-of-two-worlds who was very much exactly the boy raised by the Kents. Perhaps he’s already been Superboy, perhaps not; at the very least he’s already been adventuring, gaining control of his powers, maybe saving lives in secret. Doesn’t he just have to take that next logical step to become Superman? On the surface, there’s no transformation necessary.

But a deeper examination of any Pre-Crisis iteration reveals a flawed quality I have already mentioned: comfort. Perhaps comfort isn’t even the best word; more of a lack of a sense of urgency. And that makes sense in a very real way. First and foremost, most teenagers exist with only some vaguely-defined sense of their future. For the great majority, the ability to do something they feel passionate about (sports, music, superheroing in Smallville) is enough to satiate a teen’s desire for fulfillment. And furthermore, whereas Post-Crisis Superman is forced to deal with the uncomfortable truths of the world all at once, this iteration of the character has had his entire life to develop coping mechanisms. And the most effective way for children (heck, even adults) to cope with uncomfortable truths is to ignore them, block them out. It is in this aspect of characterization that I find most Pre-Crisis iterations of Superman lacking (at least overtly), but this aspect is also incredibly important and inescapable; by the time Superboy has reached his peak, he is only comfortable because he has learned, as do so many children, to repress so much of the ugliness of the world. He is still an innocent. That is why it’s okay for him, in his mind, to be a farm kid from Kansas. If he is Superboy, then he feels doing some heroing around Smallville is enough for him. Thus is the basis for his transformation revealed.

Grant Morrison put it succinctly, discussing his approach to All-Star Superman: "We're going with the version where Pa Kent has died. That's the day Superboy becomes a man.”

For Post-Crisis Superman, his innocence is stripped by the onset of his powers. His world is turned on its ear, forcing him to re-examine everything he knows and feels in a quest to find his true place in the world. For Pre-Crisis Superman, the death of his father confronts him with the very same reality. That buoy providing safe haven in the unknown ocean is cleaved in two, and he suddenly realizes that another blow will erase it all together. And then what? Be a farmer saving lives on weekends? Having known the fragility and sorrow of mortality for the first time, having been emotionally assaulted by his own powerlessness, Superboy asks the question so many of us do when we lose our first loved one: “Is this how I want to spend my life?”

This is why the death of Pa Kent is so critically important to the birth of Pre-Crisis Superman – It is THE moment of decision where Clark can either choose to continue his farm existence, shirking a higher calling and continuing to ignore those painful truths of life in favor of comfort and predictability, or he can man up to the true responsibility of what his abilities demand, even though it means he can never go home again.

And thus we reach the first crux of this entire argument, the basis for why Clark Kent’s journey to Superman is a true transformation. This alleged persona of “Farm Clark Kent” is nothing more than an illusion.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Part 3:

Superman can’t go home again. I know that’s terribly sad and you wish it not be true, but that’s life. That’s growing up. That’s becoming a man. Superman cannot go home again.

In order to become Superman, the persona of “Farm Clark Kent” and the comfortable sense of home that corresponds to it, must be taken from the character. Not tragically, as it was for Batman, permanently scarring his psyche and motivating his deviant behavior. No, for Superman this identity is stripped from him in the most humane way possible – by growing up. I imagine everyone has heard the phrase: “Now you know it, you can’t UNknow it!” or the various versions thereof; there is a profound truth in that statement. For Post-Crisis Clark Kent, the application of this truth is obvious. Following the onset of his powers, his travels of the world, and everything he comes to know, his parents may still be there on the farm ready to welcome him with open arms, but things will never be the same. That existence is gone for him, and it is questionable whether he would even want it back. He knows things, understands things, believes things, and IS something far beyond the scope of that humble farm…And he makes no question of it. This struggle is illustrated wonderfully in the graphic novel Superman: For All Seasons (particularly the first and last chapters).

For Pre-Crisis Clark Kent, he too walks away from his beaucolic upbringing, knowingly and not without some sadness, but with zero regret. The moment after his father’s death that he decides to stop being a child, to stop ignoring the fact that he has the power to save the world, he forces himself to confront truths he cannot unconfront. He steps into a role that is beyond anything he was on the farm; beyond even what his parents would have thought for him (“I don’t know whose reason, or whatever the reason is.” – Pa, STM, “He’ll be alright, won’t he? The boy?” – Pa, All-Star Superman). His Pa is gone, and with him the illusion that Clark Kent is just like any other boy. He is something far bigger, he understands things far more important, and he must rise to meet that challenge.

The transformation I have been discussing is thus revealed quite pointedly, in either case, to be from Farm Clark Kent into Superman.

This point cannot be made strongly enough. Post-Crisis Superman WAS Farm Clark Kent, up until the onset of his powers forced him to reconsider the whole of the human condition and his responsibility to it. Pre-Crisis Superman WAS Farm Clark Kent up until the moment of his father’s death, when he was forced to battle with whether or not he is truly doing enough to aid the human condition he already understands. Their conclusions lead them to the same place:

The son of Jonathan and Martha Kent BECOMES Superman.

Superman is not just an occupation, a side venture, or flippantly “what Clark Kent can do”; it cannot be. Superman is the sum total of extraordinary experience, incredible insight, powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, and the honest, hard-working, pragmatic teachings of the Kents. Superman is Clark Kent’s life work. Much like Gandhi, he may be a man, but he lives the life he knows will make the world a better place. In his commitment and effectiveness, he becomes more than a man.

It is not that suddenly “Superman” takes over Clark’s body and erases Farm Clark Kent, thereby erasing the influence of the Kents, or Superman’s appreciation and love for them. This is not Superman spitting on his human parents, as are the grounds for such venomous slander against the opinion that Superman is not really Clark Kent in disguise. You must understand, discarding the arbitrary conventions of the names, Jon and Martha Kent raised Superman. The boy from space that they raised as their own quite literally becomes Superman, completing the very path of compassion, respect, responsibility, and hard work that the Kents sent him down.

Clearly, then, it is in BEING Superman, in saving the world, in fighting for a better future, in protecting a humanity he loves so dear, that this man is truly himself. THAT is who he is. At best, any continuation of the Farm Clark Kent persona is just a proxy, a stand-in for Superman that he might better continue his relationship with those in his past that he still loves. But that is not the true man. He has changed. Into Superman.

So let’s now return to Metropolis Clark Kent, taken for granted as the disguise.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Final part:

There was an excellent article written around the time of Superman Returns' release which discussed a rather childish conceit inherent in the Superman story: Once you realize that this character is, at his very core, a Superman here to save the world, the idea that he would masquerade as Clark Kent, to even bother to have a second identity at all, is ludicrous. The article discussed how the entire idea of ClarkKent was only dreamed up by Jerry and Joe as an allegory, a tool to empower the meek and mild-mannered reader into connecting with the Superman inside him or herself. The article went on to relate how, once comic books starting becoming more concerned with logical storytelling and believable motivation, the whole idea that Superman would spend his time pretending to be human became more and more ludicrous, especially with as many rapes, murders, and thefts as he can see and hear in the world on a daily basis. And that’s all true, and a perfect critique of why Metropolis Clark Kent cannot be simply a proxy identity like Farm Clark Kent, which is more or less Superman in duller clothes. The proxy identity is the one undertaken solely for the purpose of connection to the human race. If that were Superman’s sole concern with maintaining a human identity, Ma, Pa, Pete Ross, Lana Lang would all be excellent touchstones, and individuals for whom he would not have to consciously alter his behavior and personality.

As has already been discussed, the position that Metropolis Clark Kent is the true natural evolution of the character is simply incorrect. This image completely subverts the critical and inescapable metamorphosis into Superman which overtakes young ClarkKent, transforming him from good-natured Midwesterner into a paragon of truth and justice. For him to continue any semblance of a normal human life after that moment must be a conscious decision, because all his inexorable natural proclivities drive him to become Superman. As explained, that is who he is, and saying the Metropolis Clark Kent is also who he is, at least in the vein of a “Lois and Clark”, takes us back to the rather astute argument posited by the aforementioned article: Being Clark runs contrary to the entire essence of Superman because he is more or less ignoring the good he COULD be doing in favor of the selfish pursuit of a “normal” life (something he’s already had to reject during the course of his character evolution anyway). One’s natural path in life, barring mental illness, will not result in the creation of two disparate, co-existing identities; therefore, either Metropolis Clark or Superman must be a consciously-created disguise. We have seen that Superman is not a disguise, so Metro-Clark must be. And Superman would have no reason to consciously create a disguise in order to be himself (now there’s a paradox) because Superman IS himself, and he already has the “leftover” proxy identity of Farm Clark to cover that base as far as interpersonal relationships go.

There’s always the tried and true argument that a good secret identity protects loved ones, but that’s a flawed argument in Superman’s case. As far as anyone knows, and as far as he lets anyone know, he has no real identity to be discovered. Going by our analysis thus far, he is Superman through and through by the time he is about 18, and there is no reason for the world to know of Clark Kent without him wishing it so. Perpetuating his life as Clark Kent only serves to endanger his loved ones in Smallville by increasing the chance a villain might discover he even has another identity to exploit. And as far as pursuing adult relationships, even Byrne’s Superman was pretty transparent concerning his affection for Lois Lane and friendships with Jimmy Olsen, Emil Hamilton, etc., so the threat to any of them would be the same whether Clark Kent existed or not.

Interestingly, this particular point also casts some doubt on the argument that Clark Kent is Superman’s tether to human life, citing Kingdom Come as a frightening example of what happens to Superman when he loses Clark Kent. Even ignoring the fact that Superman’s perspective would allow him to observe just as many moments of inspired human transcendence as of human ugliness, it seems his hope in humanity could still be preserved by fulfilling interpersonal relationships with Lois, Jimmy, et al. whether he fielded them as Superman OR as Clark.

And finally, there’s the staple argument that Clark Kent IS just a disguise for Superman, but is necessary because being a reporter at a major metropolitan newspaper puts Superman in the best position to keep track of where he’s needed. I think the hovering/listening scene in Superman Returns alone pretty much squashes that idea. If anything, obligations to preserving that second identity would only serve to compromise Superman’s efficiency.

So what the hell is the true function of Metropolis Clark Kent?

The answer, as always with Superman, is a pragmatic one. The most potent weapon for change in the world is not force; it’s truth. Power can be repelled, people can be killed, but ideas…As Alan Moore has taught us time and again, ideas are eternal. And if there is one idea that refuses to die, it is the truth that no society is sustainable without freedom, equality, and a commitment to peace. It has been the 800 pound gorilla in the room of the human race since before Aristotle. This is why the first priority of any totalitarian government has always been to destroy and commandeer the media infrastructure of the territory they control: Information is the world’s most precious commodity. Enlightenment and understanding create a better world at the expense of the powerful, and thus they are under constant threat of attack and repression.

Metropolis ClarkKent is perhaps Superman’s greatest tool in his quest to create a better world. As much good as Superman can do by repelling world-class threats, saving innocent lives, and spreading a feeling of hope around the globe, the greatest dangers to humanity’s future will always be beyond his ability to overpower. War. Poverty. Injustice. Prejudice. All the ugliness which cannot be punched or inspired out of humanity, he must attack differently. He must attack with truth.

He must attack as ClarkKent.

That wholly alien perspective? All that breathtakingly wondrous beauty and inexplicably terrible ugliness he alone can truly know? That is where his writing comes from. Those are the truths journalist Clark Kent hopes to unveil to the world, cutting through the ignorance or apathy he himself was spurred past in his transformation to Superman. And while it may pain him on some level, the immediate good he gives up by perpetuating life as ClarkKent will never measure up to the truly meaningful change he can create with uncensored, unforgiving truth. Therefore he makes the most pragmatic decision possible: He lives two lives, spending as much time as he can actively fighting for a better world as Superman, while still maintaining an ability to spark profound change as journalist Clark Kent.

It becomes apparent by this logic that Kingdom Come (and Red Son, for that matter) is indeed an accurate portrayal of the danger of Superman losing Clark Kent, just not in the traditionally accepted sense. Rather than losing his investment in the human race altogether through the loss of Clark (and, connectedly, Lois), Superman loses the ability to inspire change through truth. Ultimately, he skirts dangerously close to the precipice of totalitarianism himself; stripped by that time of all his ability to change the world through the non-violent propogation of objective truth, he feels he must instead force his doctrines upon the populace for their own good. That is the danger of Superman losing Clark – when he loses his most effective weapon, desperation is not far behind. And a desperate Superman is a dangerous Superman.

Hopefully one can appreciate just how pure, appropriate, and mythical this particular interpretation of the character is. The whole of his existence is dedicated to the pursuit of a better world, with his commitment and hope completely beyond the ken of any other. He truly becomes what we should all aspire toward.

Exactly as it should be. After all, he’s Superman."

Sorry for the long post but this is just the BEST view of Superman ever written.

 

[DavidTyler]

This looks VERY interesting. I'll read it when I get back and thank you for digging this up

 

[TruerToTheCore]

double----

 

[TruerToTheCore]

IN YOUR OPINION. Please qualify your responses. There are a healthy number of us here at the Hype who will argue the exact opposite. A lot of us feel that Byrne got it spot on and Ordway & co. really did a great job of fleshing it out. Simplified is good if you're setting up a foundation. It needs to be direct and clear so that others can build on it. REALLY?!!! So Jerry Ordway, Roger Stern, Marv Wolfman ... they never were Superman Fans? Wow... would you please write to them and let them know because I'm pretty sure they'll be as shocked by that statement as I am. And, since you seem to have the amazing ability to read minds would you please tell us all who Obama is picking for his VP? We're all dying to know that as well.

Byrne and Wolfman... I don't think they were real "fans" of the character. Especially Wolfman. I've read many interviews with him, he always seemed to have taken the job for the popularity, I have no proof for that theory of course. Ordway & Stern on the other hand, yes, THOSE guys were probably Superman fans. They even re-did some of Byrne's changes. (Remember Superman yelling "My name, tyrant, is SUPERMAN!". Superman! Not "Clark Kent!")

You seem to have this fixation with the phrase 'farmboy'. Is this a prejudice against people of other cultures or just a bad attempt to belittle a concept?
Since you bring this up again later in your missive, I'll address it then.

"Strange Farmboy from another ranch who came to earth with powers like a dozen of other guys there?"

Make him the best in the DCU again!

Nothing against "farmboys" but Superman isn't one of them. He comes from there, but he isn't one.

Hercules and Samson? Yes. But we've progressed passed simple concepts such as those. In fact, new presentations of Hercules and Samson reflect current character writing concepts. Depth and no longer infallible.

I skip that. One thing: Are they also defeated in every issue like Superman? Are they also defeated by everyone even third-rate villains like Superman?

Again, those are just simple foundations for other to build on. Much like what Byrne and Wolfman did with Superman.

They didn't "build on", Maggin for eample "build on", but they took Marvel concepts ("Just a regular guy with Superpowers", "A guy who develops powers in adolescence") and gave them blue tights with a large "S".

Superficial Cliche? Hmmmm.... and what was her father before that? Want me to fill in the blank for you? He was never spoken of. She was a fait accompli. She arose full blown with almost no background except for a sister that Jimmy was paired up with.

And, really, what's so cliche about him being a military career man? I have a large amount of friends who are just that? Everyone has parents ... why shouldn't hers reflect the personality she was given by the writers? Who should she have had as a father? What would you have done with the character? Cliche. I believe if Byrne had made him a green grocer from Syracuse NY with a bad heart and a penchant for picking up strays, you would have still had issues with it because it was Byrne. But, to qualify, that's just my belief.

Nah. It's just a typical cliche "army man". "First shoot and then ask", that's not a deep character, that's not sophisticated. That's a stupid, one-dimensional character.

Oh, and as to writing women.. I've said over and over that Byrne is an excellent idea man and was in no sense any competition for people like Moore. Waid, on the other hand, is very weak when it comes to concepts but strong with characterizations. The two would compliment each others styles if Waid could accept that only the dialogue and main plot would be left to him while the concepts would have to be Byrnes.

"Idea man"? I can't even think of one creative Byrne stories. He made some entertaining ones, but nothing really outstanding. When Frank Miller made "Year One", this amazing story, Superman fans got that generic "Man of Steel" (a little earlier). Nuff said.

Oh, you mean I'm not a man because my parents aren't dead? I'm not a man because my family serves a similar purpose in my life ... to be a sounding board and to give me advice with tough decisions? To be, in essence, my family? I'm sorry for the way you view that situation.

And Clark doesn't run home to his mum and dad every time he has to made a decision. Byrne realized that the death of the Kents was pretty meaningless and all the writers on Superboy ( a comic series you probably never heard of about the younger days of Superman ) discovered that the Kents were interesting characters and made for better stories. They also served by making a more organic way of showing Clarks real personality and saving on meaningless plot exposition by having Clark tell them what was happening instead. Byrne thought that keeping them alive served the character better than killing them off and so do I.

I don't have much beef with the decision to let them life. And LOL, yes, I, pre-Crisis Superman fan, know, of course who Superboy is. What' up with you. Parents die - Superboy becomes a man => Superman. And yes, the post-crisis Superman was an insecure mommy's boy. "Oh no, am I really good enough to be a hero". What crap But I guess that's DEEP!

First Batman/Bruce Wayne IS a hero in our out of costume. Period.

First of all, at the end of the day Batman is still Bruce Wayne. He needs his costume to scare criminals. When he wakes up he has to DRESS UP as Batman and to play an act to achieve his goals. But when Superman wakes up he has to dress up and act to be CLARK KENT. Got the difference?!

And to finally address your 'Farmboy' remark:

You seem to have a superficial understanding of what I spoke of earlier about the real core of the character being Clark. First ... the fact that Clark grew up on a farm in no way means that he's a simple farmboy. He is, at his core, the straightforward, compassionate, hardworking individual the Kents raised him to be. That has nothing to do with whether he was raised on a farm or, as in the Superboy comics, in the Kent's little grocery store. You grow up but you never lose who you are. At least, most people don't. You don't lose the influences that made you YOU. That's why Clark is the core and 'Superman' & 'Daily Planet associate Clark' are permutations of that personality. Neither is a lie and neither is a falsehood. They are simply different sides of the same personality. Clark in Metropolis is quiet and reserved. Clark as Superman is direct and a man of action who often takes charge in a crisis.

I don't really disagree, but your "trinity aspect" (public Clark Kent, private Clark, Superman) is really more fitting for Batman. Private Clark and Superman should be the same. Superman is what he is. He IS the hero, not an act. That's what so great about the authentic Superman and "Superman is what I do" thing is what's so bad about the imposter post-crisis Superman.

Putting on a costume did NOT make Clark a hero. Clark would have been a hero no matter the Superman moniker or not.

Yes, he is the hero. Without costume and with costume. You got it. Doesn't matter if he is called "Superman" or "Giantman", he IS a hero, not a regular guys who lives a normal life except when danger lurks and he must turn into a hero. That's SPider-Man, not the Man of Tomorrow.

And his powers developed over time. Another thing Byrne was spot on about. There is no concievable way the Kents could have realistically raised a baby they couldn't control. He would have needed to NOT have those superpowers until he spent sufficient time under our Yellow Sun.

Doesn't matter. Always different, always had to hide his "true self", so "Clark Kent" was never completely "REAL".

Now this is something I can agree with you on ... with the exception of your comment about Byrne doing it to mirror his own history. England was not a dystopia. That's where Byrne was borne.

And the immigrant angle is right from Siegel and Shuster. It's an integral part of what they created.

Yeah, but Shuster and Siegel's immigrant was more jewish and Byrne's was a WASP.

Uh.... NO he wasn't. He was a baby. He didn't remember a lot. I grew up with the silver age version of the character. He wasn't a toddler.

He was in many "origins". In some he was a baby (who had still some memories, might come from that "superbrain", oh, I forgot, some people like Superman to be a country buffoon, easily outsmarted by Luthor and Batman )

And Byrne's statement in the final chapter of MOS rings truer than anything any other Superscribe has written. To paraphrase: 'Krypton made me Super but Earth made me human'. His Kryptonian worthless? I think it's how you're interpreting it. I look at it that he learned from his Kryptonian heritage what was important about the human race by both the example of his birth father and the repression Jor-el saved him from.

Superman should be the best humanity can offer and Krypton should be the best humanity can become.

But let's not gloss over this. Byrne's Krypton had a rich and vibrant history before it reached it's final days. It was a slow and gradual process from that life embracing past to the dystopia it became. It became an interesting story in itself - as opposed to the Flash Gordon Krypton of the 50's and 60's or the confusing mess of Birthright.

The other way would have been okay. Once a terrible place who turned into a paradise before Kal-El was born.

Are you really saying that firemen, police officers, and farmboys are less than good because that's exactly how that reads.

When you show me firemen that can fly?! You like to twist my words, don't you?

I don't want Superman to be perfect. I want him to stumble at times. I want him to be angry at other times. I want a Superman who isn't god-like in his wisdom and abilities. I want a Superman that I can identify with and interesting stories can be written about.

Superman IS perfect. He is not meant to be "relatable". Go and read "Spider-Man" (well, he was married to a supermodel, if that is relatable ). The "Clark Kent disguise" is to relate. That is supposed to be US.

And you like him to be angry? Read "For The Man Who Has Everything". You don't want him to be angry. Superman is a nice guy, do you know why? Because he can be, he has nothing to fear. And to "stumble"--well yes, in his own comics he stumbles over third rate villains like that electro punk girl and gets beaten by Batman. Yeah right. Superman fans are really the only ones who want to see their character beaten up. You know, Batman writers are ususally fans of the character, so they made him tougher and smarter and smarter, because the thought "well, he is cool So he has to be the best in everythign". And thus, the Batgod was born. On the other hand, SUperman's popularity had declined and so many new writers didn't like the character because they thought he was "boring". So they turned him down, made him basically an idiot (a guy who once was the most intelligent being on earth!), another reason was their in-ability und anti-creativity to come up with good stories for such a strong and perfect character.

Again, you read minds? and... again... you need to qualify that 'we are right' statement.

Those are guys who appreciate the great fantasy and adventures, the sheer imagination of the old Superman comics.

 

[Superman-Prime]

Ugh.. Superman Returns haters... they want a reboot of Superman. They makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[SuperDaniel]

What makes me sick to my stomach is everytime i watch Superman Returns.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

SuperDaniel, the text you posted is GREAT. Who wrote this?

A slap into the face of the "Clark Kent is the real guy" corner.

 

[Showtime]

Whether or not you like Superman Returns or not, I wouldn't be worried about Mark Millar and a reboot.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Ugh.. Superman Returns haters... they want a reboot of Superman. They makes me sick to my stomach.

yeah, that movie about Superman's bastard child was so great

 

[Superman-Prime]

What makes me sick to my stomach is everytime i watch Superman Returns.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[SBrooks1]

yeah, that movie about Superman's bastard child was so great

A bastard child who kills someone while Supes doesn't throw a single punch....

 

[SuperDaniel]

SuperDaniel, the text you posted is GREAT. Who wrote this?

A slap into the face of the "Clark Kent is the real guy" corner.

A poster called The Enlightened One in the Planet Forums. It is really amazing writing. There`s another reflection by him about "relatable vs aspiration" that is as incredible as this one.

 

[Superman-Prime]

yeah, that movie about Superman's bastard child was so great

I disagree. I loved Superman Returns, but I don't like the idea to have Superman's son in this movie.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I disagree. I loved Superman Returns, but I don't like the idea to have Superman's son in this movie.

A Superman movie isn't the place for themes like bastard childs and love-sick stalkers.

 

[honest george]

ALL Star Superman is Grant Morrison's baby.

Not only the best Superman stories I've ever read, they have my bid for best comic story ever.