How much do you have to know about Superman to "get Superman".

[Jim Kelly]

You should be able to get Superman right away. It's not needed to have an encyclopedic knowledge of his mythology and his adventures. The classic comics were written to appeal immediately to the reader and, if they worked right, you would instantly see why Superman is so great.

Even now, a number of kids spot a Superman figure in the drugstore or a Superman T-shirt in the department store and they go crazy--jumping around and yelling. So those kids get Superman. That's what you're supposed to feel--an instant buzz of excitement.

Learning all the trivia comes later. In terms of writing a good Superman story, I find that some writers get Superman and some don't. The ones that get Superman don't waste any time getting into the character and telling stories about him. The writers who don't get Superman spend a lot of time setting up situations that put Superman in a place--often out of his comfort zone--where they can plug Superman into that situation (but it could be Steve Rogers or John Stewart or Peter Parker).

[Jon Clark]

You should be able to get Superman right away. It's not needed to have an encyclopedic knowledge of his mythology and his adventures. The classic comics were written to appeal immediately to the reader and, if they worked right, you would instantly see why Superman is so great.

Even now, a number of kids spot a Superman figure in the drugstore or a Superman T-shirt in the department store and they go crazy--jumping around and yelling. So those kids get Superman. That's what you're supposed to feel--an instant buzz of excitement.

Learning all the trivia comes later. In terms of writing a good Superman story, I find that some writers get Superman and some don't. The ones that get Superman don't waste any time getting into the character and telling stories about him. The writers who don't get Superman spend a lot of time setting up situations that put Superman in a place--often out of his comfort zone--where they can plug Superman into that situation (but it could be Steve Rogers or John Stewart or Peter Parker).

But some of those kids you describe might be similar to the writers who don't get Superman. They see the symbol and recognize it, but on the playground with their buddies they might easily view Superman as Wolverine with no claws or Spider-man who can fly.

To me getting Superman is more than being a fan of one version, but it isn't about knowing trivia. It's being able to appreciate the ideas and ideals the character embodies. It's the things that you see in the character consistently across the various actors, writers, artists and such. And you might see those things if you are lucky the first time you encounter the character, but you also might not especially if you get a run-of-the-mill presentation or worse yet a bad one-off presentation. That's why I don't agree that all fans get the character- because someone who watched only the George Reeves series, someone who read only Morrison's All-Star Superman, and someone who only watched Man of Steel can all enjoy those things equally but have radically different ideas of who Superman is at his core. They can all claim to "get" Superman without having much in common that they "got"

[Kuwagaton]

But the problem with that is I can watch one episode or even story-arc of say Doctor Who in the Pertwee era and enjoy the main character. I could tell you why I liked him. But if I walked into a Doctor Who fan meeting and proclaimed that "I get Doctor Who" but held that the character wasn't anything like Tom Baker, David Tennet, or Matt Smith ... do I really have a valid point? Or am I someone who needs to be shown a wider perspective of what the character is in order to "get" that he is more than a British secret agent with cool sci-fi opponents.

You would understand what it is you like, and there's no obligation tied to that. If the question is "how much do I have to know to get other fans off my back?" Well, you could research until your eyes bleed, but it's up to them as to whether or not they get off your back. There's always going to be something you don't know. If you're not actually calling out Matt Smith to trash him without watching his stuff or having only the fuzziest of memories about it, I don't see why they'd care anyway.

You could also compare it to reading a few pages out of the thousands of Harry Potter pages, or an actual academic subject. Except, those technically have a single vision. All of the creators of Superman across 80 years were coming from different times and places and saying different things. Let's say you hunkered down every night for years and read 20% of all Superman. You'd still be likely to score less than a passing grade if you took a test, because 20% of the material is meager. You might even fail a test on the stuff you read because it's so random.

You should be able to get Superman right away. It's not needed to have an encyclopedic knowledge of his mythology and his adventures. The classic comics were written to appeal immediately to the reader and, if they worked right, you would instantly see why Superman is so great.

Even now, a number of kids spot a Superman figure in the drugstore or a Superman T-shirt in the department store and they go crazy--jumping around and yelling. So those kids get Superman. That's what you're supposed to feel--an instant buzz of excitement.

Learning all the trivia comes later. In terms of writing a good Superman story, I find that some writers get Superman and some don't. The ones that get Superman don't waste any time getting into the character and telling stories about him. The writers who don't get Superman spend a lot of time setting up situations that put Superman in a place--often out of his comfort zone--where they can plug Superman into that situation (but it could be Steve Rogers or John Stewart or Peter Parker).

Well said.

[Jim Kelly]

But some of those kids you describe might be similar to the writers who don't get Superman. They see the symbol and recognize it, but on the playground with their buddies they might easily view Superman as Wolverine with no claws or Spider-man who can fly.

I'd agree that some kids don't get the appeal of Superman or confuse him with other characters. But the things that excite kids about Superman, about Wolverine and about Spider-Man tend to be different--whereas there might be more confusion with other characters that aren't so distinctive.

Superman has a cape and a big red S. So a kid wants a red cape or an S T-shirt. As soon as a kid has a cape (or a towel worn as a cape), he/she imagines flying. Spider-Man--the kid probably wants the PJs or maybe a Spidey mask--Superman doesn't have a mask. Wolverine--the fake claws are a good thing to have. These characters, even though they might be similar (Spidey and Supes both pull off red and blue colour schemes) are still different enough that kids can get into them right away.

Even the names are different for a kid. When you say Superman out loud--Sooo-per-maan--your voice is almost flying upward. Spider-Man you shout out like a cheer in a burst of sound. Wolverine you growl. They're all three syllable names, with "er" in the middle syllable, but each demands a different feeling as you say them.

[Johnny Thunders!]

Oh my gosh, almost nothing. You don't need know that much about King Kong to get King Kong and Superman is the same kind of big wow!

[Jon Clark]

I'd agree that some kids don't get the appeal of Superman or confuse him with other characters. But the things that excite kids about Superman, about Wolverine and about Spider-Man tend to be different--whereas there might be more confusion with other characters that aren't so distinctive.

Superman has a cape and a big red S. So a kid wants a red cape or an S T-shirt. As soon as a kid has a cape (or a towel worn as a cape), he/she imagines flying. Spider-Man--the kid probably wants the PJs or maybe a Spidey mask--Superman doesn't have a mask. Wolverine--the fake claws are a good thing to have. These characters, even though they might be similar (Spidey and Supes both pull off red and blue colour schemes) are still different enough that kids can get into them right away.

Even the names are different for a kid. When you say Superman out loud--Sooo-per-maan--your voice is almost flying upward. Spider-Man you shout out like a cheer in a burst of sound. Wolverine you growl. They're all three syllable names, with "er" in the middle syllable, but each demands a different feeling as you say them.

By this logic every bad idea for a Superman movie from 1987 to 2013 passes the smell test. Guys like Nick Cage and Jon Peters all "get" Superman.

[Jim Kelly]

By this logic every bad idea for a Superman movie from 1987 to 2013 passes the smell test. Guys like Nick Cage and Jon Peters all "get" Superman.

I'm not saying that the movie guys all get Superman. We don't know what the effect of the Nick Cage movie would have been on the masses, especially little kids. But we can assume that lots of kids got into Superman based on some exposure that the fan community doesn't approve. Even a bad rendering of Superman could have enough elements to get a kid to look for more stuff.

The wonder is that SMALLVILLE managed to do this without any of the items that ought to be in Superman. No cape, no flying, no supersuit. That's a deep cut. I guess everybody already had some investment in Superman before they watched that show. It's hard to imagine a five year old turning on SMALLVILLE and immediately getting into the show, without any prior exposure to the mythology.

Alvin Schwartz--in AN UNLIKELY PROPHET--talks about his days as a Superman writer in the '40s and '50s, where he explores this idea that Superman is real. He says there were some writers who understood the character, but others didn't. Schwartz leaves DC after an argument with Mort Weisinger where he's asked to make Superman do something that he didn't believe Superman would do.

This distinction between writers is clear to me with Dennis O'Neil and Elliot Maggin--even though I like both writers and the adventures they wrote for Superman.

O'Neil's first Superman solo story (i.e. not JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA and not WORLD'S FINEST COMICS) is in SUPERMAN 233--"Superman Breaks Loose"--the first story in the Sand Superman Saga and the comic that changes so much stuff about Superman.

Maggin's first Superman story is in SUPERMAN 247--"Must There Be a Superman"--only Maggin's second comic book story ever. Nothing about Superman changes in this story and yet it's an essential Superman tale.

In the letter column and other things I read at the time, Maggin expressed his understanding of the character, that he found it easy to write Superman and yet he had other writers around him complaining that it's so hard to write Supeman.

O'Neil seems like one of those writers who found it hard and he had to find devices to get into the character. Just about every Superman story that O'Neil did had Superman getting nerfed, just so Denny could do the kind of stories he would do with Diana Prince or Batman or Green Arrow.

The Sand Superman Saga is great--it really pulled me into Superman comics--but Superman is often acting out of character. What makes the series work is the Swan and Anderson art. This really looks like Superman and you can feel that he's going through some stuff that's making him act out of character.

In fact, the Sand Superman Saga is really best enjoyed if you know something about the Man of Steel first. It works by subverting what we assume about Superman--making him question himself and humanity, forcing him down a path he would not normally go. But it works to the degree that it does because it's playing off an already understood version of Superman, the World's Greatest Super-Hero.

Maggin doesn't have to overturn the Superman character to write a good adventure. His first tale does question Superman's mission, but Superman doesn't go through any radical change. He continues to be true to his own nature.

[jimmy]

For me personally, nothing I tuned him in on radio 70 years ago when I kid, and my mom bought me a Funny Book aka (Comic Book) that Sunday after Church and I was "double hook" on the character and thought to myself, if I could be him and that's all it took...

However, back then, things were allot simpler...today, things could are more complicated and that all depends on the individual their mental needs and make up.

In paraphrasing the various Bible meanings : Judged by Your Deeds, motivations and intentions to know someone!

[Sacred Knight]

Thing is there's different nuances to different incarnations of Superman. They're subtle, but all put together make for some significant differences. Makes the question of "Do you get Superman?" rather difficult because it has to be followed up with the question "Which one?"

I'll never forget when I realized this. It was years ago when I was watching Kill Bill 2 and Bill is talking to The Bride telling her about how Clark Kent is Superman's mask. Back then all I really knew was post-Crisis Superman. So I was like "WAT??? That's so wrong!" But it so wasn't, not for a particular version of the character (the first 50 years, actually).

[Thor-Ul]

For a question that has plagued the Superman fanbase for as long as I can remember there don't seem to be any real parameters surrounding it. As much as people squeal about it, the question is always answered in vague terms. How about instead of vague platitudes how about we set some real boundaries for what it means to understand this character.

I don't know if this is the rigth question. Superman is not something measurable as a physical property like the lightspeed, it is more like an emergent quality, and it changes at the same time as society. The Superman from the 40s it is different from the Superman from the 80s or the modern era (narratively, I'm not talking about DCU continuity here), but they share traits that get passed from one iteration to the next, following the trends in society. Some traits will be added and other will be lose from one iteration to the next and depiste we all get an idea of Superman maybe it is not the same for everyone. It will depend on the emotional impact would have the stories in the readers if a determined writer will "get him" or not.

[Jim Kelly]

I'll never forget when I realized this. It was years ago when I was watching Kill Bill 2 and Bill is talking to The Bride telling her about how Clark Kent is Superman's mask. Back then all I really knew was post-Crisis Superman. So I was like "WAT??? That's so wrong!" But it so wasn't, not for a particular version of the character (the first 50 years, actually).

But even if KILL BILL had come out before COIE, all of fandom would have debated Bill's statements about Superman and how true they really are. Tarantino isn't writing Bill as a reliable authority. What Bill says is true for Bill not Superman. And it only matters that audiences appreciate the allegory he's setting up for Beatrix Kiddo.

One of the nice things about Superman is that everyone can put forward their own theory about the character, but it's just a theory.

Most of us don't know who we really are. Other people see us and make up their own theories about us. That's the interesting thing about human psychology--as I think one of my Psych profs in university pointed out. We observe others and look at them as if they are supposed to be consistent--so we give greater weight to those things that fit our bias about a person and we dismiss things that disprove our belief.

We see other people as characters in a story, who act according to our theories about them. But when it comes to ourselves--we don't see the same pattern--we see a lot of things that we do that are perfectly random, because each of us is simply reacting to the unpredictable reality we exist in.

Which is a long way of saying that the random nature of Superman is actually how any person lives their life. Whereas, the theories about the character that impose a pattern on his existence fail to accept that Superman could just be reacting to the random world as it happens.

[Lightning Rider]

Thing is there's different nuances to different incarnations of Superman. They're subtle, but all put together make for some significant differences. Makes the question of "Do you get Superman?" rather difficult because it has to be followed up with the question "Which one?"

I'll never forget when I realized this. It was years ago when I was watching Kill Bill 2 and Bill is talking to The Bride telling her about how Clark Kent is Superman's mask. Back then all I really knew was post-Crisis Superman. So I was like "WAT??? That's so wrong!" But it so wasn't, not for a particular version of the character (the first 50 years, actually).

Haha, I remember having that same reaction until having the same realization.

[Powerboy]

I don't know if this is the rigth question. Superman is not something measurable as a physical property like the lightspeed, it is more like an emergent quality, and it changes at the same time as society. The Superman from the 40s it is different from the Superman from the 80s or the modern era (narratively, I'm not talking about DCU continuity here), but they share traits that get passed from one iteration to the next, following the trends in society. Some traits will be added and other will be lose from one iteration to the next and depiste we all get an idea of Superman maybe it is not the same for everyone. It will depend on the emotional impact would have the stories in the readers if a determined writer will "get him" or not.

That's true. For instance, the Krypton of 1938-39 in it's original form was a reflection of the times as a fantastic world of the future that reflected the fascination with science and technology as a mostly wondrous and positive thing full of endless possibilities. The Krypton of the 1980s is a Dystopian future of a world selling it's soul to the machine for comfort and paradise, a world that has abdicated responsibility and paid the price.

It's not as if Byrne and others didn't know what Krypton originally was written to be. They were just replacing it with a Krypton that reflected the social attitudes of the time they were writing.

In fact, using Byrne as an example, there were readers that feel Byrne was one of the first that made Superman into something they can relate to. I don't mean relate as in step into his shoes but perceive him as having any believable motives. I don't think that's true. I think there are far more nuanced takes on Superman. That was just a take that was simple and easy to comprehend. But you'll find huge groups of people with mutually exclusive opinions of who Superman is and they all know that they are the ones that get him.

[Ascended]

to be an authority on the character of Superman is... I don't even know.

Yeah, its a daunting prospect isnt it?

Post crisis, almost any development will tell you that you have to go back to Byrne to really understand. You can create one of those crazy web diagrams like a detective on tv, and if someone doesn't know how to follow it back to Byrne, they don't really get it, do they?

I dont think that's the case, myself. I started reading Superman when he died, after Byrne had left. I didn't actually get around to reading any of the Byrne material itself until like, six or seven years ago (wait....maybe closer to ten now....), and having read it I don't think it's necessary to understand that version of Clark. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but aside from the status quo stuff like his origin and marital status....that era made it surprisingly easy to walk into the mythos and find your footing. Id say the only thing from Byrne that truly matters to the character long term is the death of Zod. So I suppose I'd say you start there, with Zod and the pocket dimension, then roll through the Krypton Man and into Exile and onwards.

The unique quirks of Byrne's characterization also didn't last long. Under Byrne Clark calls Krypton a "curious memento of a life that might've been" yet after his death, its a Kryptonian funeral, or rather what Clark imagines one might look like, that Blaze uses to try to steal Clark's soul, indicating that he puts much more importance on his heritage than Byrne did. Of course, "Clark" retains the lion's share of prominence in this dynamic, but it's much more balanced post-Byrne.

Im not saying Byrne's work doesn't matter.....but what he did that was worth keeping was handled better by other writers, what he did wrong in regards to Clark's personality were largely dropped or underplayed once he left, and Stern, Jurgens, etc., contributed more to the mythos that carries more weight. Byrne laid down a foundation, but the other guys made the improvements that matter the most.

But thats just my opinion.

[Kuwagaton]

I totally agree that other writers really picked up the ball, and also that you don't need to read anything, actually. I randomly, as my very first Superman comic, picked up his first bout with Baron Sunday shortly after Byrne left (years after publication, also) and those random encounters early on made it personally more fun in some cases to jump into the middle of something and let the story fill itself in. And back then, it was impossible not to get filled in because 80s comics were just all about recap narration in continuing stories.

But even without those pages, the storylines themselves traced back. I mentioned Baron Sunday, who debuted under Stern but was teased originally as a case Byrne's character Maggie was following. Byrne also had Maggie deal with his villain Skyhook, who discreetly teased Blaze. Exile is a combination of Superman's encounters with Brainiac and the pocket universe, Krypton Man comes from the Van-L character and the perilous ethical disputes of earlier Krypton. And so on. The infamous monologue from MoS #6 has its own legacy, as he undergoes a Kryptonian rite of passage under the Cleric which leads to his inheritance and accepting the fortress as a beacon of his ancestry. It's an A-Z thing. I guess it's just a foundation, but what is even the fanciest structure without a foundation, or a tv show that debuts with its second episode?

It's really just neat to know even if it may not register as necessary reading. I think the idea of being something of an authority on at least one era involves stuff like the Siegel/Shuster or the first appearance of Silver Age Brainiac. There's definitely a chance it won't end up being your favorite of the available material, but you kinda need a grasp on the beginning. Millennium is my least favorite story maybe ever and I'm glad I don't own World of Smallville, but it has to be in my understanding of the story if not in what I guess is my personal canon.