Official : Bendis gets both books

[Lvenger]

Would "like" Myskin's posts a thousand times if such a feature was available. Great stuff on the over-romanticizing about the Rebirth era for Superman.

Because liking one era of Superman more than another one is solely romanticizing it and not because of a variety of reasons including writing, character dynamics, consistent portrayals and fresh organic style of storytelling *rolls eyes* Honestly the only reason I don't break down the various flaws and misunderstandings in Myskin's post is because he's both arguing ad nauseum and because he's clearly got a bias for New 52 Superman that would make discussion pointless.

[Sacred Knight]

This is not about liking it. There's nothing wrong with liking the era. This is about the myth that--when put up to scrutiny of the reality of sales and the general practices of the industry-- it was somehow inconceivable for the creatives teams/directions to change. Its a general sentiment that's very prevalent out there in cyber space, and what I was assuming (please correct me if I'm wrong, Cyke), was an impression the provider of the initial question was getting about the era hence the question in the first place. That's what I mean by over-romanticizing.

I don't know what Myskin's preference is, but if it does lean toward New 52 why does that make any argument he might make toward the larger mythos biased to the point of perceived invalidation? Everyone has their favorites, and thus a natural internal bias. Being biased toward the New 52, or any other previous era, is no different than being biased for Rebirth. If you don't want to rebut the arguments that's fine, you're certainly not obligated to nor does it cheapen your specific beliefs. But going out of your way of saying you specifically won't because of what he's a fan of, rings more like both an evasion and a wrongheaded opinion that a fan of a certain era is not worth discussing with, an idea which would be a little bit demeaning.

[Vordan]

I don't really think every teen character has to also be some sort of built-in rebel. I like the idea Bendis presents specifically with how Lois has related to her son. When Lois meets up with her dad in Action Comics and tells her father that Clark is Superman, she also clarifies that she wished she'd been able to do this with him sooner.

She said that she hated her relationship with her father and how things have shaken out, and she is actively taking steps to make sure that her son doesn't feel the same sort of resentment or need to rebel that she did with her dad. She's also just as sad over Clark's relationship with Jor-El, and how what Jor-El seems to primarily do is talk down to Clark and the choices he's made in his work.

Jon not rebelling, but also not being tied to his parents hip is specifically attributed to how Lois and Clark raised him right, and avoided follow-ups to their relationships with their parents. But Bendis doesn't allow it to be a perfect system because he goes with the motto of "life sometimes just happens." And then it tests the conviction of Lois and Clark to adhere to this idea. Another test will be coming up in the form of the Legion offer, and we'll be getting both their feelings on in.

I think it's far more nuanced and interesting (though flawed in its execution, mind you) than Jon just being another teen that rebels because of vague ideas of hormones. I can't I'm at all mad he stayed away from that so far.

Myskin’s argument is that Clark didn’t raise Jon right though. His moral teachings to Jon can be summed up as “do the right thing” and “hope harder”, and Jon being a little kid eats that up unquestioning. But Myskin points out that neither of those lessons has much in the way of actual meat on them. Why is it moral to fight crime but not world hunger after all? We could’ve had a back and forth between Clark and Jon about why Clark operates the way he does, but that never happens.

Because liking one era of Superman more than another one is solely romanticizing it and not because of a variety of reasons including writing, character dynamics, consistent portrayals and fresh organic style of storytelling *rolls eyes* Honestly the only reason I don't break down the various flaws and misunderstandings in Myskin's post is because he's both arguing ad nauseum and because he's clearly got a bias for New 52 Superman that would make discussion pointless.

If you see problems with his argument critique away! I don’t agree with everything Myskin said but I do agree with him about how the Clark-Jon teacher-student relationship was a missed opportunity and showcases all the worst aspects of the Pa & Ma - Clark relationship.

[manwhohaseverything]

If it has become basically impossible to write a story about the titular character of a series without necessarily dealing with the whereabouts of one, or all, of the characters you mentioned, they can become/have become a burden. Maybe Lois would make an exception, because she has been such an important part of the Superman mythos from day one that it simply feels weird to write a Superman story without her. Even if there are very good Superman stories without Lois and somehow in contrast with her role as Superman's main love interest (the original Lori Lemaris adventure, for example).
Anyway, the examples you proposed don't hold much water. Jimmy Olsen and Perry White are easily ignorable (most of the time their characterization is so vague that I simply forget that they are there; especially Perry) and there have been literally years of stories without Supergirl or Superboy. Most of the time them can simply work as background characters or without really "being" there.
This doesn't apply to Jon at all. For reasons which the user Tzigone has perfectly summarized here:



Do I really need to add more here?
Just to be clear, one of the main issues I have with Jon (maybe the main issue) is not Jon per se (even if in most of his appearances in Rebirth I find him unbearable, but that's mostly because of Jurgens' writing) but the fact that they introduced an "unavoidable" character without fixing most of the problems and frailties of Superman as a character in the first place. In fact, those problems are still here. Just with one character more, whom you can't ignore.



I have read this justification a lot of times whenever someone brought up similar problems here on CBR forum (not me) and it has always sounded unconvincing. It's as if - once you have introduced a a character - you have ONE way to deal with him, ONE way to write his dialogues, ONE way to make him behave in ONE way. Nobody forced them to write a Superman who teaches that way. No one forced them to write a teaching Superman. And nobody forced them to introduce a son Superman had to teach to. Heck, no one forced them to write Jon as wide-eyed SuperLord Fauntleroy, either. And I really hope that we don't have to start nitpicking discussions about Jon being 11 or 12.

In Superman 2 (2016), just at the beginning of the Rebirth era, there is an exchange between Jon and Clark which summarizes their relationship pretty well. Clark gives him an extremely vague lesson about "doing the right thing when no one else will" and the powers which are not as important as having the right character, and Jon is humble and innocent and apologizes because he used his powers when Superman wasn't around. Well, even without being the most cringeworthy example (the war veterans story got plenty of them and, rather than jingoistic, it is unreadable: its only positive point is that everybody apparently forgot about it) this is a perfect example of why this type of lessons simply don't work in a comic book. The "right thing". As if there was a superhero who would teach his son to do the bad thing. "Right thing", like "hope", and "everything's well", belongs to the realm of the ethical lessons/words which mean zero and I hope not to see anymore in a superhero book (but I expect to see many times more, sadly). Besides that, the problem here (and that's a defining element of their relationship) is exactly that Superman is always represented as a hero all certainties and few/no doubts and Jon as a kid who sees his father as a God and never doubts his word.

"But Jon is an 11-year old kid and every kid sees his father as a God". I'd say that this is debatable (I speak from personal experience) but OK, let's say that this is the case. The problem is, even if Jon is a kid, the reader isn't. And - if the reader has a bit of critical spirit - he/she cannot but see how Superman's words don't mean much. What does "the right thing" mean? OK, superheroes shouldn't kill - that's obvious - but is, for example, not fighting world hunger the right thing? Is not battling sickness the right thing? What about racism? And we are dealing with a character whose entire editorial history in the latest 20+ years largely focused on posing this type of questions. It's as if Tomasi had forced the reader to identify himself/herself with Jon and make him/her accept simplistic answers instead of more complex, but also more interesting ones. Superman's lesson: be a good person. Yeah, without Superman nobody would have ever thought about that.

One thing's true, though. This is the typical approach to writing a "teaching" character in a mainstream superhero book. Mainstream as in Marvel or DC - a lot of Image books contains very complex life lessons without having the same tone. Unless you are a very good writer with a lot of freedom, most of ethical teaching you are allowed to include in a DC book have the same depth of a Masters of the Universe cartoon. The problem is, you have to be very careful when you add even more "teaching" traits to a character who for decades has been described as a paternalistic boy scout (and I hope that I don't have to demonstrate THAT such conception of Superman exists).



I don't think that the Super Sons sales were good enough to justify the series to continue. And no, the sales didn't go down because of the introduction of teen Jon (but this is something people with more patience with me have already discussed about in this forum).
Anyway, the upcoming Legion book will probably play the same role you are suggesting here. You don't like it? Don't read it. You don't have a version of Superman/Jon you like anymore? That's comics. It has always happened and it will happen as long as comic books will exist. How do you think New52 Superman readers felt when they introduced SuperDad? How do you think PostCrisis Superman readers felt when they introduced the New52? How do you think PreCrisis Superman readers felt when Crisis happened? And so on. If the new Legion proves successful and this version of Jon is appreciated by the readers, the Super Sons will simply become a thing of the past like thousands of other stories (and no, if it happens, it won't be because Didio/Bendis hate Rebirth Jon).

Dude, you don't know that. The original supersons had pretty decent sales. It did better than many books was nowhere near cancellation level.
even if that wasn't the case. there was always the titans .if jimmy olsen and perry white can be ignorable so can jon kent. Superbooks only need to focus on jon when the writers feel like and when clark is at home or teaching jon to control his powers . Just like perry and jimmy are only focused when clark is at work or at daily planet. They like jon need not be in focus all the time. Just when the story demands it. They won't be ignoring jon's existence like tzigone was saying.

Tzigone is only saying that he likes the superfamily dynamic. I myself do as well. There are others who don't. And want the focus solely on superman. That is also a preference. But, as long it is a superman book. Superfamily is just a bonus. The fact is superman family adventures Should be expected only from a superman family book like the fantastic 4 book.

And as for superman's frailties it will always be there. And you can't stop adding support characters just to fix that. It's just not possible.

Dude, what are you on about? You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The context of that conversation was jon his 10 year old son lying to his father regarding buring up his cat. It had nothing to do with world hunger or racism. Jonathan kent sr. would have been written similarly in this kind of situation as well. They were just having a father-son conversation.it wasn't some all so bad condescending paternalistic monologue by clark. Jon was an equal partner of that dialogue.

"Doing the right thing. even when you are scared, even when you think nobody is looking" is full QUOTE (kinda).. Clark was probing jon to get him to confess. And This did prompt jon to fess up due to guilt of hiding things from his dad.so doing the right thing is being honest in this context.Also, Jon is not an idiot. He might have gotten the feeling that clark has some idea about the incident and that clark is on to him. So, his guilt overpowered him.

Have you read any thing about gandhi.One of the only times gandhi has said to have lied was when he was in his early teens. He stole some gold from his brother and sold it. But it wasn’t for himself.

He gave the money to his other brother to help him get out of debt. He couldn’t sleep that night. He tossed and turned, feeling awful. Finally, he confessed to his father. He was ready for any punishment. But instead of getting upset, Mohandas’s father wept. He was hurt that his son had lied, but happy he had confessed.

This is a similar situation with clark and jon. Tell me, was gandhi's father being paternalistic? You are just grasping at straws. Gandhi turned out alright, except for some character defects i believe.

Dude, no just no. Clark was always struggling with jon. We had glimpses of that with his conversations with bruce and lois. He wasn't being portrayed as guy with all the certainties. In fact jon increased his uncertainties. Messing things up with jon would be fatal for clark. It took his personal stakes up a notch.

Please, don't bring the "don't like don't read" thing with me. I could bring a mirror and say the same thing to you. I know it's comics blah! Blah!Nothing you have said in that paragraph has any relevance to how jon is bad for superman. As for legion being successful i hope it does. But, i don't care. jon is the character i care about. I would like something better. We are all here to complain about the characters we feel invested in. Supersons, if it wasn't enough of fan favourite then bendis would not have had to put a reunion issue.

[Myskin]

he's clearly got a bias for New 52 Superman that would make discussion pointless.

A "bias" as in "I like New 52 Superman too much", you mean? Ha! :-D
You are free not to believe me, but personally speaking I think that New52 Superman is one of the worst lost occasions in the entire history of the character. Even the Morrison era on Action Comics is so flawed that I simply don't care to re-read it anymore (and Morrison is one of my top 5 favorite writers).
Sorry, but this is not a case of New52 Superman vs SuperDad :-)

[Superlad93]

Myskin’s argument is that Clark didn’t raise Jon right though. His moral teachings to Jon can be summed up as “do the right thing” and “hope harder”, and Jon being a little kid eats that up unquestioning. But Myskin points out that neither of those lessons has much in the way of actual meat on them. Why is it moral to fight crime but not world hunger after all? We could’ve had a back and forth between Clark and Jon about why Clark operates the way he does, but that never happens.

I disagree with what Myskin defines as "right" in this instance. I don't think what's being described is Clark not bringing up his child correctly or to the best of his abilities, but rather one specific aspect where Clark didn't really understand the full weight of what was going on. And the point is that Jon didn't "eat that up." He actively questions it even though he clearly agrees with the sentiment behind Clark's words in Man of Steel issue 6. But Lois and Clark are a team, and where he falters, she picks up the slack. She encourages and facilitates Jon trip. And as we've seen with the ending of issue 14 of Superman, it's his unique perspective of that trip that leads to the United Planets.

And the thing is, the story makes the moral debate you're talking about, but it's just not two characters arguing. Jon and Clark take a step towards something more direct, and it's due to the journey both have been on and what both have learned (Clark learning of exactly how Krypton's fate came to pass, and what those involved did before and after. And Jon learning about the greater galactic community from his perspective). The neglect in fleshing out Jon's journey is the weakness of this story, but the idea of this being a coming together of two journeys and perspectives is stronger than two characters yelling at each other with Jon punctuating the situation with "you're just so out of touch, OLD maaaaan."

[Super-Cyke]

Thanks for the answers and commentary on my question, everyone

Wait, i haven't read much bendis before. But, was bendis responsible for "cyclops was right" thing? I have read some of it. I didn't know it was bendis who wrote that. That was pretty cool.

I don't know if Bendis started "Cyclops was right" (if i remember correctly that was first shown right after avengers vs x-men in a mini series where Emma and Magneto break Cyclops out of jail, I don't know if Bendis wrote that) but in Bendis' Uncanny X-men run he went hard into the Cyclops was right thing

[Konja7]

I don't think that the Super Sons sales were good enough to justify the series to continue. And no, the sales didn't go down because of the introduction of teen Jon (but this is something people with more patience with me have already discussed about in this forum).
Anyway, the upcoming Legion book will probably play the same role you are suggesting here. You don't like it? Don't read it. You don't have a version of Superman/Jon you like anymore? That's comics. It has always happened and it will happen as long as comic books will exist. How do you think New52 Superman readers felt when they introduced SuperDad? How do you think PostCrisis Superman readers felt when they introduced the New52? How do you think PreCrisis Superman readers felt when Crisis happened? And so on. If the new Legion proves successful and this version of Jon is appreciated by the readers, the Super Sons will simply become a thing of the past like thousands of other stories (and no, if it happens, it won't be because Didio/Bendis hate Rebirth Jon).

Super Sons sales were probably enough to mantain a book (I mean Supergirl is still mantained). Or they can put Jon in Teen Titans.

I think the point is that kid Jon doesn't need to be a "burden" for Superman.

Jon appear a lot in Rebirth, because it was his introduction in the universe. Also, Tomasi really like the father-son relationship, so he writes a lot about this.

Other writers could just ignore Jon or put him as background cameo, since he isn't really "unavoidable".


PS: Adventures of Super Sons was the comic "affected" for teen Jon, but there are other factors in the poor sales.

[Yoda]

It's possible that one can both have enjoyed the Rebirth era immensely, Superfamily and kid Jon and all, and still have thought it was time for some sort of change. While Jurgens just kinda hummed along, I was ready for something to change on Superman. Rebirth era was uneven, and while definitely an improvement over the New 52 and the 2010 era Supertitles, was not without obvious weaknesses or faults.

As for Super Sons, it was selling at or better than Supergirl for most of its second volume without the benefit of a "B" variant cover. So if DC really wanted to keep it going, there is plenty of incentive to do so. It sold better than or on par with a lot of books that are still cranking along like Hawkman or Red Hood. The biggest thing that hurt Super Sons was probably Jimenz blowing up in popularity. That and Tomasi very clearly kinda phoning it in on the second volume.

[Superlad93]

It's possible that one can both have enjoyed the Rebirth era immensely, Superfamily and kid Jon and all, and still have thought it was time for some sort of change.

Shhhhhh, didn't anyone tell you that we're not supposed to be real? Fans like us are basically a myth lol

[Yoda]

Shhhhhh, didn't anyone tell you that we're not supposed to be real? Fans like us are basically a myth lol

We are very special.

[manwhohaseverything]

Thanks for the answers and commentary on my question, everyone



I don't know if Bendis started "Cyclops was right" (if i remember correctly that was first shown right after avengers vs x-men in a mini series where Emma and Magneto break Cyclops out of jail, I don't know if Bendis wrote that) but in Bendis' Uncanny X-men run he went hard into the Cyclops was right thing

You know what? I think i did read that. Crazy, i thought i had never read Bendis's stuff before. But, turns out i did. I only read it because one of my friends had this tshirt and i loved cyclops when i watched xmen tas.

[Myskin]

Dude, what are you on about? You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

You asked for an example, and I provided that. As I said, it is not the most cringeworthy example, but it becomes a problem when basically every interaction between two characters in a specific period follows the dynamics that I have described earlier.

Jonathan kent sr. would have been written similarly in this kind of situation as well.

And it would have been equally embarassing. As someone else has said earlier (Vordan?), Pa and Ma Kent talked a lot, but rarely said anything meaningful during their interactions with Clark.

Please, let's not bring real life historical figures into this. The complexity of people like Gandhi has zero to do with Superman and DC Comics. It's the equivalent of a Reductio ad Hitlerum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum), just with good people. Let's keep it on a merely narrative level.

Please, don't bring the "don't like don't read" thing with me. I could bring a mirror and say the same thing to you.

Do it. Or keep doing it, if you were already doing it. What's the problem? ;-)
I mean, no matter how much people are open to defend or criticize Jon or Clark or Tomasi or Jurgens - if you objectively think about it for one moment the entire Rebirth relaunch is not the worst Superman era of them all, nor the the best one. It won't become a milestone (well, nothing becomes a milestone anymore in mainstream superhero comic books, mostly because I guess that too few people care about them, and rightly so) and it has come to an end. So what? A lot of Superman eras have come an end. Bendis era will come to an end. Heck, Superman as a character will come to an end, maybe within my lifetime. On these forums I see people put herculean efforts into attempting to demonstrate that 17-year-old Jon is the worst thing ever happened to DC and Bendis is a bad writer/cannot write dialogues/doesn't respect Jon/doesn't respect Lois/doesn't respect minorities/his feet smell. Isn't it a bit, I don't know, pointless?

[manwhohaseverything]

We are very special.

Oh! Please. Unicorns are just ponies with a horn. What is so special about that?

[Vordan]

It's possible that one can both have enjoyed the Rebirth era immensely, Superfamily and kid Jon and all, and still have thought it was time for some sort of change. While Jurgens just kinda hummed along, I was ready for something to change on Superman. Rebirth era was uneven, and while definitely an improvement over the New 52 and the 2010 era Supertitles, was not without obvious weaknesses or faults.

As for Super Sons, it was selling at or better than Supergirl for most of its second volume without the benefit of a "B" variant cover. So if DC really wanted to keep it going, there is plenty of incentive to do so. It sold better than or on par with a lot of books that are still cranking along like Hawkman or Red Hood. The biggest thing that hurt Super Sons was probably Jimenz blowing up in popularity. That and Tomasi very clearly kinda phoning it in on the second volume.

Shhhhhh, didn't anyone tell you that we're not supposed to be real? Fans like us are basically a myth lol

Lol for all my complaints I still think the Rebirth era was one of the best Superman eras ever, even if it was not 100% perfect. I still think issue 45 by Tomasi is the best “finale” issue for a Superman run since Grant Morrison’s Action run. But I also think the critics like Myskin do have some good points, and that the flaws of Rebirth kind of feed into the flaws in how DC has portrayed Superman for a long time.