Superman opinions you're disdainful towards.

[Jon Clark]

I am getting great responses. I am trying to read and think about them. Thank you DochaDocha and Jon Clark for giving your response. I appreciate it.

As of now i must admit i don't like Clark Kent to be a creation of Superman. Reason: it takes away that relatabilty i feel for Superman. Not against those who like it that way. Just my preference.

Superman is grand. Clark Kent is ordinary. I am ordinary. I can be Superman. My contention lies there.

This is my second question. To those who like this: Clark Kent is a lie. Superman poses as Clark Kent. Why do you like it?

I love Superman who is just someone like me. He has some special abilities. He wants to help. It is so simple and sublime. Not everyone suffers tragedy. Not everyone has that life-changing moment when everything fits in place. He listens to his parents, thinks himself and decides that he shall do something for his fellow men. It is so beautiful. It is so simple. It is so Superman.

When Clark Kent is a lie, the question is why does he do so? Why pose as Clark Kent?

Again this is not a challenge. I simply want to hear other's point of view. And my previous question stands i know there are more fans who hate: Clark Kent is who i am Superman is what i do. I am sure there would be more answers.

I want to understand how different fans love Superman.

I always related to Superman through Clark in the sense Clark is what everyone else sees, but Superman is what is there just beneath the surface that everyone isn't seeing. All the girls who didn't see the great guy I was were like Lois Lane who just couldn't get past those glasses. All those guys in class with the looks and the skill- I'd outshine them all once I found that phone booth and they stopped seeing "Plain ol' Clark Kent".

I felt at points like I had some alien way of perceiving the world that no one else could share in the same way that Superboy/man couldn't really relate to even the Kents what his experiences were. There is no common frame of reference to describe "the sound bullets make when they strike invulnerable flesh, or what the wind feels like in your face when returning from outer space". And sometimes especially, as a teenager, you feel like no one else ever goes through the same things you do and you just can't find the words to explain it to them. And like the Superman I grew up reading the answer was never "I wish I could be Clark 24/7 and share the ordinary life", it was "I wish there other people who saw the world like I do that I could share this with: a Mon-El, a Krypto, some Legionairres ..."

And when my teen-aged self wasn't feeling sorry for himself I liked the idea of someone powerful who had no ulterior motives except to help and do good. Whatever name he went by Clark/Superman wasn't a corrupt politician, a bullying authority figure, or any of the other powerful guys I saw on the nightly news.

[Kuwagaton]

It's a part of the overall story that's resonated with many people over the last 80 years. That people don't look past the glasses and see a super man.

I personally never got it because for most of the first fifty years, Clark was an act. It's what he deliberately showed people. They didn't look past the glasses because he didn't want them to, and when Lois got too close he made sure to disappoint her.

To the idea of Superman being a job, I think that's an aspirational thing. A job shouldn't be just a job, punch in punch out. A job should be something you enjoy doing, that you'd do without a paycheck as long as you were able. I don't think Superman is "what he does" in the sense that it describes the truth of what he believes and how he carries himself as much as his given name, but the identity is the result of a conscious decision to utilize his circumstantial powers as opposed to being the identity into which he was born. If he got a doctorate and went by Dr Kent, it would be understood that he's Clark Kent with a doctorate, not a doctor who calls himself Clark Kent. Dr Kent wouldn't be a fabricated persona, but also not the totality of his person.

[Nostradamus]

Why do fans hate: Clark Kent is who i am and Superman is what i do?

Step in his shoes. Superman is not his name. It was given by others. His name is Clark Kent. His name is Kal-El. His name is not Superman.

Why such a fuss? I grew up as Clark Kent. So i am Clark Kent. Just by putting on some clothes i am not changed. Why this hatred? I am not here to challenge but to understand why fans feel like this?

The hate depends mostly on what people think Clark Kent is. I don't like the 'just a normal Farmboy from Smallville who just so happens to have superpowers and saves the world' interpretation. I prefer the 'just an alien raised by two loving farmers and who happens to develop all these superpowers that he has to keep hiding and living a lie in order to use them to serve the people'. The Clark is who I am approach usually does away with the alieness of his, meaning I don't get the illegal immigrant who is inspired by the people who took him in to serve his adopted planet. I don't get the othered being whose love for the people forces him to share his gifts. About being disadvantaged and privileged at the same time. About trying to fit in with society despite being so different because while he looks like a white human male, he experiences things differently to humans, he feels differently to humans, he thinks differently to human. And yet, he's one of the most human characters because of his upbringing. I just think you lose quite a bit of that with the Byrne approach.

Superman isn't exactly like Wonder Woman or Martian Manhunter who are sort of aliens themselves and aliens to the world. He's not like other superpowered heroes like Flash or Green Lantern who lead human lives and get superpowers. He's an alien like the first group but has the human experience of the second group. I like to see the duality. He's Clark Kent, the ALIEN Farmboy from Smallville. Just don't take away that alien part.

[DochaDocha]

To me, the best explanation for 'Clark is who I am, Superman is what I do' came during the Death of Clark Kent arc, where he explained to Lois that he takes more pride in writing novels than in flying to the moon, that he wants to show what he could be without his powers and be accepted as a normal human. Flying to the moon is fun and exciting, and even fills him with wonder, but it doesn't have the same satisfaction as writing a pulitzer prize winning story or an award-winning novel.

Hmm, let's break this down a bit.

I can understand why he takes more pride in writing a (good) novel vs. flying to the moon, because when it comes to space travel, he's kind of a big fish in a small pond. That's something that's routine and easy for him, whereas planning and writing a book is an art that takes a lot of effort, and being able to engage a reader is something his Kryptonian biology is NOT going to give him a leg up.

On the other hand, let's look at the back end of the statement, that he gets more satisfaction out of writing a Pulitzer-prize winning story than flying to the moon (or wherever in space). If you said the trip to space was just some joy ride, and the story he wrote was something that positively affected the lives of a person or many people, sure. No argument. On the other hand, I'd probably contest the validity of the statement as a good description of Superman if it were something like Superman takes more pride in writing a Pulitzer-winning story than flying to a different star system and toppling some intergalactic dictator. Also, by a similar principle, if Superman would take enjoyment out of doing something well where his Kryptonian genetics don't give him an advantage, he would highly prioritize doing constructive things where his talents are scarce and can't be easily replicated by us mere mortals.

I'm not against the idea that Superman would enjoy some of the more ordinary human tasks, but I also like it when writers make it a point that he likes the Kryptonian stuff, too.

[TruthAndJustice]

I think Geoff Johns got it right in Superman: Secret Origin and other stories. When Clark finds out he's an alien, he HATES it. But he grows to accept it and honors his heritage. But he doesn't LOVE Jor-El and Lara -- he loves Jonathan and Martha. He's NOT "a stranger in a strange land." He's a Kryptonian-American, if you will. (And if anyone thinks that growing up in Kansas means you're a "dumb country hick" -- well, that's insulting to everyone in Kansas, no?)

Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet, is mostly an act. Superman, or Clark Kent, son of Jonathan and Martha and husband of Lois Lane, is the honest persona. But "Superman" is indeed a job title, a "work name."

[JBatmanFan05]

I think Geoff Johns got it right in Superman: Secret Origin and other stories. When Clark finds out he's an alien, he HATES it. But he grows to accept it and honors his heritage. But he doesn't LOVE Jor-El and Lara -- he loves Jonathan and Martha. He's NOT "a stranger in a strange land." He's a Kryptonian-American, if you will. (And if anyone thinks that growing up in Kansas means you're a "dumb country hick" -- well, that's insulting to everyone in Kansas, no?)

I'm more with Donner or stories that have Clark well suspect that he must be something pretty different from other humans and he definitely doesn't hate learning he's an alien at first, part of him was sorta expecting some explanation like this. The pieces fall into place for him. Not hate, but he just has to internalize it a bit, which he has a leg up on since he's already internalized that he has powers and others don't.

[Sacred Knight]

I don't think he should hate his alien heritage at any point. Scared from the point of view of thinking this means he's not really Jonathan and Martha's son? Absolutely. Playing off that fear and confusion on finding out you're adopted is quite key. But no way should he ever hate his special heritage, no more than he should ever grow to hate that he grew up, as best he could, as a human being. Superman is about duality, and with a strong duality there is no extreme to one side or the other. Thus, I think he should in fact be quite intrigued with his Kryptonian side after getting over the initial shock of it and knowing that no matter what, Jonathan and Martha consider him their boy. He should indeed grow to love Jor-El and Lara, in memory but also via the unique chances he gets via time travel and Kryptonian tech to actually get to know them on some level. He's not a stranger to the land, but he always knows via his abilities (of which he should have to some degree from birth), that he's not the same as everyone else so feel a bit isolated from them in that regard. Superman at its base is a title, but what it represents is the real man. "Superman" encompasses Kal-El and the private Clark Kent. The only mask, the only thing that can be construed as a front is the public face of Clark Kent. Superman is more than just a title that Lois gave him once upon a time in that regard. It is the public title given to his true face, what Clark Kent is in reality. What Kal-El is in reality. Superman is when he can be who he truly is in public at will, its when that duality shines in equal measure. Marking it as just a title I see as a disservice to the mythos.

Johns often times misses out on that duality (though he can get it on occasion, like in those New 52 panels posted earlier). But when push comes to shove he favors one side, the human side, and thus often misses out on the full-fledged nature of the character. That's why more often than not I feel his Superman work misses the mark.

[JBatmanFan05]

Johns expresses time and again through his work that he doesn't get that duality. He always favors the human side, to quite an extreme, so he's never taking advantage of the full-fledged nature of the character. That's why more often than not his Superman work misses the mark.

What I find odd too is that he claims he's this big Donner adherent (Donner was his mentor, prod assistant and all) and his Superman, what he favors or not, doesn't quite jive with the Donner Superman that I saw.

[Sacred Knight]

Superman's just not his bread and butter. He struggles with the concepts I think. Sometimes he can get it (I amended my words a bit to reflect that, to be fair to him), a lot of times he doesn't, despite his inspirations like Donner as you pointed out. Everyone has their bread and butter. Johns' lies in other areas. Doesn't mean he's not a good writer, doesn't mean he can't weave a tale, but its other characters and concepts that bring out his best.

[TaliaJoy]

Even as someone who kinda prefers Kryptonian stuff to be relatively minimized (even though doing otherwise can work well too), to the point of being perfectly satisfied and happy with Krypton playing no role in Superman other than providing his origin and Superman never even knowing where he comes from beyond the bare basics (though again, it doesn't HAVE to be that way for me to be happy), having Clark outright hate the fact that he's an alien goes too far. Be uncomfortable with it, fine. Hate? No. I also agree with JBatmanFan05 that I don't think learning he's alien would be completely shocking, because I prefer thinking that he has at least some powers from early on even though they develop over time, so he always knows he's "different" in a pretty big way. I mean, don't get me wrong, it'd be a lot to take in. But even then, I expect more just confusion or not knowing quite to make of it or handle it, rather than hating it. (Note that I haven't read Secret Origin yet.)

Also, as far as loving Lara and Jor-El goes, I would just point out that, even in the absence of time travel and AIs, it's very possible to love somebody you've never met. It may not be in the same way he loves his adoptive parents that he's actually known his entire life, but just because it's not the same kind of love doesn't mean it's negligible, much less nonexistent. Not only did they bring him into the world, but they saved his life from the world exploding. Without them, he wouldn't have Earth as his home, or Jonathan and Martha as his parents. Why wouldn't he love them, insofar as he could?

That being said, I totally agree with the "Kryptonian-American" description of Clark. And I can't help but sympathize with Johns a little bit for making that decision since I'm the kind of person who strongly does not want Superman to be too defined by Krypton rather than Earth, so it can be tempting to go too far in the opposite direction. But going to extremes doesn't help anybody. You have to have some balance and duality in how you handle things. This goes for the entire "which is real, Clark Kent or Superman??" debate overall. Though I have to admit I fall towards the Clark Kent side of things, there still needs to be balance and a sense of duality and not a reactionary response, to the point where I don't like it being outright stated that one side is real and one is not. Anyway, that whole "debate" is FULL of loaded terms. What a person means by "Clark Kent" and "Superman", what someone means by "true identity", etc...it can vary a lot. I also don't believe my position is the "right" one in any way. It's just my personal preference.

I could go on for longer about my opinions and ideas about trying to find a balance between the two identities and how exactly to go about it, but it's already been talked about so much here that I'll try to stick to the original point of the topic. I usually am not disdainful of others' opinions, but there are just a few that others have mentioned that I would like to agree with and reiterate. The idea that Superman "needs" Lois to stay grounded in humanity is definitely a dumb one, as it's basically forgetting about the very existence of Clark Kent. While I don't like shipping Superman and Wonder Woman, I'm not inherently disdainful of it, but I am very disdainful if it is being motivated by the idea that Superman "needs" to be with another superhuman being simply because he's superhuman. Ugh!! Finally, while I'm fine with people defending Superman having a no-kill policy, I get annoyed when people act like it's the absolute be-all and end-all of everything, both because A) Superman has been shown to kill directly and indirectly so many times throughout his history in multiple eras, B) the idea that killing is never right is a pretty fringe moral position, so it's odd to apply it so steadfastly to superheroes alone.

[JBatmanFan05]

B) the idea that killing is never right is a pretty fringe moral position, so it's odd to apply it so steadfastly to superheroes alone.

I doubt anyone who has argued against having comics/films show "modern" "main"* Superman kill would argue that police shouldn't ever kill or anything like that. But Superman is not an unpowered real life cop and just because comics/etc can show/contrive something doesn't mean they should. I'm a no-kill Superman type that loves Golden Age comics and Punisher and Death Wish movies and everything. (Obviously this is all agree to disagree material that's a good bit off topic for this thread as far as potential back and forth debate)


*If Z.Snyder or Joe Johnston did Superman: Golden set in like 1938 or so, I'd probably be fine with Superman killing on screen there

[The World]

I guess the big one would be the "he doesn't have flaws" thing. It just feels lazy and intellectually dishonest.

Oddly I've come around on the no kill code. I think mainly because so few heroes do it anymore, makes the few who do have hard line rules or relatively hard line rules against killing more unique.

[Soubhagya]

Why do fans think it is ok to kill? Superman has no right to take a life. Who is he to decide someone shall die? Is he a judge? Does he represent the judicial system which is an arm of the government. Government which is elected by the population. The American way? An all powerful alien who kills is frightening
It is also against everything about the hope symbol. There is capacity in everyone to be good. Killing means you have taken away the chance of reforming of someone. The writers may not be doing a hood job. (They shall specifically create a villain to reform.) Fault of writers not the concept.

Hmm, let's break this down a bit.

I can understand why he takes more pride in writing a (good) novel vs. flying to the moon, because when it comes to space travel, he's kind of a big fish in a small pond. That's something that's routine and easy for him, whereas planning and writing a book is an art that takes a lot of effort, and being able to engage a reader is something his Kryptonian biology is NOT going to give him a leg up.

On the other hand, let's look at the back end of the statement, that he gets more satisfaction out of writing a Pulitzer-prize winning story than flying to the moon (or wherever in space). If you said the trip to space was just some joy ride, and the story he wrote was something that positively affected the lives of a person or many people, sure. No argument. On the other hand, I'd probably contest the validity of the statement as a good description of Superman if it were something like Superman takes more pride in writing a Pulitzer-winning story than flying to a different star system and toppling some intergalactic dictator. Also, by a similar principle, if Superman would take enjoyment out of doing something well where his Kryptonian genetics don't give him an advantage, he would highly prioritize doing constructive things where his talents are scarce and can't be easily replicated by us mere mortals.

I'm not against the idea that Superman would enjoy some of the more ordinary human tasks, but I also like it when writers make it a point that he likes the Kryptonian stuff, too.

Don't you think you are overthinking? He said he takes more pride in writing then in flying to the moon. He did not say in flying to the different star system and toppling a dictator.

He maybe speaking about a pleasure visit to the moon. Not about a visit while doing the job of of Superman.5

[DochaDocha]

Don't you think you are overthinking? He said he takes more pride in writing then in flying to the moon. He did not say in flying to the different star system and toppling a dictator.

He maybe speaking about a pleasure visit to the moon. Not about a visit while doing the job of Superman.

Yeah, I'm overthinking it (), but consider what the statement is comparing: (possibly) a pleasure trip, vs. something that's generally hard to accomplish that gets recognized by peers. It just seems weird to me to make that comparison, so I figure make the comparison more meaningful by making it between doing his "job" as reporter Clark Kent vs. "job" as a Justice Leaguer.

If the question is what is Superman (or anyone) going to take more pride in or enjoyment from, then it's so trivial that it's not even worth comparing.

[Carabas]

Why do fans think it is ok to kill? Superman has no right to take a life. Who is he to decide someone shall die? Is he a judge? Does he represent the judicial system which is an arm of the government. Government which is elected by the population. The American way? An all powerful alien who kills is frightening
It is also against everything about the hope symbol. There is capacity in everyone to be good. Killing means you have taken away the chance of reforming of someone. The writers may not be doing a hood job. (They shall specifically create a villain to reform.) Fault of writers not the concept.

Superman appointed himself protector of Earth and neighbouring multiverses.
He should not kill defeated enemies. He should not kill in anger. He should not kill premeditated (exception: Joker).
What he should do is on occasion kill in self-defence or more likely the defence of others. That is something everybody in Superman's line of work should accept as part of the job.