Official : Bendis gets both books

[Myskin]

Jon not rebelling, but also not being tied to his parents hip is specifically attributed to how Lois and Clark raised him right

Just to be clear - I wasn't entirely serious. Having a rebellious teenager Jon is not in the top 50 things I would like to see in a Superman comic book. I had never really thought about this concept before now. I mean, I guess that it could be interesting, but I doubt that it would be possible to see such a development "made right" in the current comic book format. For the very same reasons Jon and Clark in the Rebirth don't seem real people most of the time.

[Yoda]

Honestly, isn't "rebellious Superboy" just going to be Conner or like Superboy Prime depending on how far they take the "rebellion". Jon rebelling against Superman with Ultraman is basically SBP, where as the lower key version where he just chafes against the confines of Superman's shadow is basically Conner for a decent stretch.

They took Jon in kinda the only direction that hadn't been done to some extent. The good kid who wants to follow in his dad's footsteps but is scared or intimidated by it all.

[manwhohaseverything]

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.



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.



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?

When did i call you gandhi to invalidate you?
Dude, i brought in gandhi Because the situation is similar. Gandhi's father did same tactic inorder to get gandhi to fess up. My aunt used to do the something similar when i used to hide things from her when i was little. She used to give me this look and i would immediately have the urge to come clean. So does that example not count? . Many parents probe their children in order to make them fess up. It was a simple situation. And it wasn't meant to be some great philosophical speech about "doing the right thing" by the great superman. It was clark nudging jon to come clean. I don't see anything cringey, but that is subjective.I wasn't discussing complexities of gandhi with you. I just remembered that story,when i read the issue. That's it.
You haven't said anything about the context just your own opinion of how it is cringey.

17 year old jon might not be the worst thing to happen to dc. But to jon and people that liked the character it has been shitty. Bendis's dialogues do have problems. Sometimes there to many bubbles and bad jokes like "caca popo".

[Myskin]

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.


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.

Yes, the last sentence summarizes my point.
It's not that I think that Superman isn't a good father/educator (as in the infamous "Superman and Lois are terrible parents because they let Jor-El take Jon" thing). The problem is not the concept, but the way everything in this father-son relationship is portrayed.
I am sure that you know that Batman is nicknamed "the world's greatest detective". Well, if you analyze those Batman adventures which are strictly detective stories (not the "BatGod" ones, which are almost a subgenre in itself) you'll see that Batman is, in fact, a mediocre detective. Most of those stories (even the good ones!) are just basic thrillers, with typical plot developments - the type of developments you'd expect from a classic detective story. But they don't put Batman in the same league of - I don't know, Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot. So why is Batman "the world's greatest detective"? Because you took for granted that, in this specific narrative universe, that's the undisputable truth, even if the stories prove otherwise. These are the "rules of the game" and, if you want to read Batman stories, you accept them (of course, these stories have other points of strength).

Well, the specific aspect of the Rebirth stories I am talking about has a lot of points in common with the "Batdetective" thing. Basically you have a father who teaches embarassingly simplistic concepts, a son who idolizes his father and - that's the key point - everything happens in a world where you are forced to accept that what Superman says/teaches is the truth and he is a good father. They don't say it openly (like the "Batdetective" thing), but the way these "lessons" are conveyed - Superman's posture, Jon's expression, the way some words are used are chosen - every narrative tool aims at highlighting how deep and "important" those teachings are, even if what Superman says is just very dull and not particularly significant. I hope that it's clearer now.

[Sam]

That and Tomasi very clearly kinda phoning it in on the second volume.

To be fair, he was probably dealing with tied hands from Superman editorial about what he could or couldn't do with Adventures. And I would totally understand if he was feeling a little frustrated after the original run was cancelled for Bendis reasons.

[Ascended]

You too huh? Didn’t have a great day either and this news just didn’t help. Well after having some dinner I’m feeling a bit more optimistic. I do like the Parkland comparison Superlad is making, even if I am still a little sore over Clark being treated as an uncool old man. But we all gotta remember that this is DC. If this take doesn’t sell, they’ll scrap it and reboot lol. We’ll see how things play out.

Sorry your day sucked too bro. Today was much better for me, and I hope your's was as well.

Still pissed about all this Legion/UP/Jon stuff.....but I have no desire to punch puppies, which is a good thing

Anyway, you can sign me up in agreement with basically everything Myskin (always good to see you man) is saying. I'm not with him 100% on all his points but the man has the right of it.

And just for the record, this isn't a New52 v Rebirth thing. I'm a fan of some parts of the New52, and Rebirth, and Bendis, and Silver Age, and Golden, and post-Crisis and.....you get where I'm going. I also have problems with parts of every era too. This tribal fandom clash? No. And I don't believe Myskin draws "this era good, that era bad!" lines in the sand either.

[manwhohaseverything]

Yes, the last sentence summarizes my point.
It's not that I think that Superman isn't a good father/educator (as in the infamous "Superman and Lois are terrible parents because they let Jor-El take Jon" thing). The problem is not the concept, but the way everything in this father-son relationship is portrayed.
I am sure that you know that Batman is nicknamed "the world's greatest detective". Well, if you analyze those Batman adventures which are strictly detective stories (not the "BatGod" ones, which are almost a subgenre in itself) you'll see that Batman is, in fact, a mediocre detective. Most of those stories (even the good ones!) are just basic thrillers, with typical plot developments - the type of developments you'd expect from a classic detective story. But they don't put Batman in the same league of - I don't know, Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot. So why is Batman "the world's greatest detective"? Because you took for granted that, in this specific narrative universe, that's the undisputable truth, even if the stories prove otherwise. These are the "rules of the game" and, if you want to read Batman stories, you accept them (of course, these stories have other points of strength).

Well, the specific aspect of the Rebirth stories I am talking about has a lot of points in common with the "Batdetective" thing. Basically you have a father who teaches embarassingly simplistic concepts, a son who idolizes his father and - that's the key point - everything happens in a world where you are forced to accept that what Superman says/teaches is the truth and he is a good father. They don't say it openly (like the "Batdetective" thing), but the way these "lessons" are conveyed - Superman's posture, Jon's expression, the way some words are used are chosen - every narrative tool aims at highlighting how deep and "important" those teachings are, even if what Superman says is just very dull and not particularly significant. I hope that it's clearer now.

If This is the page what you are talking about. Clark has a sad face when he is talking to jon. It doesn't look like clark is making inspirational speech .It wasn't some moral posturing. Clark is using his sad expression to make jon feel the uneasiness when he says "do the right thing even no one else will" to draw Jon's attention . He pauses after "even when you are scared" to increase the tension. "even when you think no one is looking" this gives clear signals to the kid that clark is on to him. His guilt makes him spill the beans. He was only trying to teach jon to take responsibility for his actions. If that ain't a moral teaching i don't know what is.

Jon didn't fight crime, actively . He helped out, sure but wasn't active crime fighter. Why would jon a 10 year old kid question how clark functions the way he does and the philosophical reasoning/ethical dilemmas behind his activities? His questioning will be more on the lines why clark wears underpants outside. He will also be too thrilled that his dad is freaking superman. And he did both. You are right that clark didn't get to raise him at all though. He was sent away during his teen years of building . But that is bendis not on tomasi. During tomasi's run jon was only starting to realise the dangers of what they do.

Even now bendis wants us to feel bad for clark. And wants us to think clark is a good parent. But, i don't think so. I think he is a shitty parent now. Similarly, tomasi can assert that clark is a good parent all he wants. But, it wouldn't work if readers don't get the feeling that clark is a good parent from the character's action. For me tomasi's clark's actions as a parent worked. Clark's concern for jon's safety and well-being. How he went about things in tomasi's run was enough for me to think he was a decent parent stuck in a weird situation.
Edit:- i still haven't gotten an answer to why jon is burden to superman or why is he bad for superman? All you said is the execution wasn't upto your expectations. That is valid opinion. But doesn't make jon a burden though.

[Myskin]

If This is the page what you are talking about. Clark has a sad face when he is talking to jon. It doesn't look like clark is making inspirational speech .It wasn't some moral posturing. Clark is using his sad expression to make jon feel the uneasiness when he says "do the right thing even no one else will" to draw Jon's attention . He pauses after "even when you are scared" to increase the tension. "even when you think no one is looking" this gives clear signals to the kid that clark is on to him. His guilt makes him spill the beans. He was only trying to teach jon to take responsibility for his actions. If that ain't a moral teaching i don't know what is.

Jon didn't fight crime, actively . He helped out, sure but wasn't active crime fighter. Why would jon a 10 year old kid question how clark function and the philosophical reasoning behind it? His questioning will be more on the lines why he wears underpants outside. He will also be too thrilled that his dad is freaking superman. And he did both. You are right that clark didn't get to raise him at all though. He was sent away during his teen years of building . But that is bendis not on tomasi. During tomasi's run jon was only starting to realise the dangers of what they do.

Even now bendis wants us to feel bad for clark. And wants us to think clark is a good parent. But, i don't think so. I think he is a shitty parent now. Similarly, tomasi can assert that clark is a good parent all he wants. But, it wouldn't work if readers don't get the feeling that clark is a good parent from the character's action. For me tomasi's clark's actions as a parent worked. Clark's concern for jon's safety and well-being. How he went about things in tomasi's run was enough for me to think he was a decent parent stuck in a weird situation.
Edit:- i still haven't gotten an answer to why jon is burden to superman or why is he bad for superman? All you said is the execution wasn't upto your expectations. That is valid opinion. But doesn't make jon a burden though.

Dude, you're putting too much effort into overscrutinizing one single panel. I chose that example just because it was the first one which I found and because the whole "do the right thing" is a very good example of what I consider a general trend in DC books - as dull as "Everything's gonna be well" and all of the other awful one-liners DC (and Marvel) keep putting into their books and try to pass off as important philosophical truth. My criticism at how these messages are conveyed (Superman's attitude and expression, etc) concern ALL of these moments during Tomasi and Jurgens' run. I'll simply avoid overanalyzing every single panel in reply because I don't have the time nor the patience to browse 50+ issues I wasn't enthusiastic about in the first place.
I don't care about the crimefighter career thing, nor the missing years thing, nor the supposed Bendis/Tomasi comparison/contrast or whatever people want to call it. These are all secondary details. And there are no failed expectations about Jon here. The main point - I repeat it again - is that when you have a character as old as Superman is, almost irreparably a second-tier in comparison to characters like Batman and more popular heroes, in a huge need of rethinking/rebuilding, the priority should be fixing every problem such character has and making him compelling and relevant again, after a LOT of thought and re-elaboration. And surely you should not try to make him appear as a powerful moral guide when the most elaborated piece of advice you can put in his mouth is simply "Be a responsible, good person". By introducing Jon, they just avoided dealing with these difficulties and created a context where Superman's paternalism is not just allowed, but even encouraged by his newfound role. They didn't solve the problems and created a cast member whose presence justifies some of Superman's biggest flaws and whom the writers are forced to deal with in most of the stories.

This as a general position. Besides that, regarding the Rebirth era specifically, my point was simply that even if it is not the worst Superman era it surely isn't the best one either, and there are a lot of flaws and problems; some of them depend the specific situation at DC at that time (and external storylines, especially Johns') and some of them depend on the writers who were working on Superman in those days. It has its fans (including Didio!), but the benevolence with which some fans look at those issues (and the aggressive defense they adopt when someone criticizes them) is overblown. It is simply an average era in the history of a very old character.

[Vordan]

Dude, you're putting too much effort into overscrutinizing one single panel. I chose that example just because it was the first one which I found and because the whole "do the right thing" is a very good example of what I consider a general trend in DC books - as dull as "Everything's gonna be well" and all of the other awful one-liners DC (and Marvel) keep putting into their books and try to pass off as important philosophical truth. My criticism at how these messages are conveyed (Superman's attitude and expression, etc) concern ALL of these moments during Tomasi and Jurgens' run. I'll simply avoid overanalyzing every single panel in reply because I don't have the time nor the patience to browse 50+ issues I wasn't enthusiastic about in the first place.
I don't care about the crimefighter career thing, nor the missing years thing, nor the supposed Bendis/Tomasi comparison/contrast or whatever people want to call it. These are all secondary details. And there are no failed expectations about Jon here. The main point - I repeat it again - is that when you have a character as old as Superman is, almost irreparably a second-tier in comparison to characters like Batman and more popular heroes, in a huge need of rethinking/rebuilding, the priority should be fixing every problem such character has and making him compelling and relevant again, after a LOT of thought and re-elaboration. And surely you should not try to make him appear as a powerful moral guide when the most elaborated piece of advice you can put in his mouth is simply "Be a responsible, good person". By introducing Jon, they just avoided dealing with these difficulties and created a context where Superman's paternalism is not just allowed, but even encouraged by his newfound role. They didn't solve the problems and created a cast member whose presence justifies some of Superman's biggest flaws and whom the writers are forced to deal with in most of the stories.

This as a general position. Besides that, regarding the Rebirth era specifically, my point was simply that even if it is not the worst Superman era it surely isn't the best one either, and there are a lot of flaws and problems; some of them depend the specific situation at DC at that time (and external storylines, especially Johns') and some of them depend on the writers who were working on Superman in those days. It has its fans (including Didio!), but the benevolence with which some fans look at those issues (and the aggressive defense they adopt when someone criticizes them) is overblown. It is simply an average era in the history of a very old character.

TL;DR Myskin thinks that trying to paint Clark as this moral authority but having him spout rather generic feel-good moral teachings that don’t actually mean anything in practical terms is bad. I would agree but every time New 52 Superman took a stand on something, like protesting police brutality, people lost their bloody minds, so I can’t blame Tomasi too much for just doing what has become a hallmark of Supes. Tomasi wasn’t out to redefine the character, just tell straightforward entertaining stories with Supes, and after the tail end of the New 52 where everything was a massive status quo shake up I quite enjoyed that.

What would you say is one of the best Superman eras? Genuinely curious and you don’t post that often but I always find your posts interesting.

[Konja7]

TL;DR Myskin thinks that trying to paint Clark as this moral authority but having him spout rather generic feel-good moral teachings that don’t actually mean anything in practical terms is bad. I would agree but every time New 52 Superman took a stand on something, like protesting police brutality, people lost their bloody minds, so I can’t blame Tomasi too much for just doing what has become a hallmark of Supes. Tomasi wasn’t out to redefine the character, just tell straightforward entertaining stories with Supes, and after the tail end of the New 52 where everything was a massive status quo shake up I quite enjoyed that.

What would you say is one of the best Superman eras? Genuinely curious and you don’t post that often but I always find your posts interesting.

The thing is I don't think many fans really want Superman stand on a morally ambiguous side. DC doesn't want this either.

Superman is usually seen as a moral authority. It would be difficult to spout a really deep and complex dialogue for a moral authority.

[Vordan]

The thing is I don't think many fans really want Superman stand on a morally ambiguous side. DC doesn't want this either.

Superman is usually seen as a moral authority. It would be difficult to spout a really deep and complex dialogue for a moral authority.

I don’t really want him to be “morally ambiguous” either and I don’t think Myskin is arguing for that. What I’m interested in is Clark having a set of principles that goes more in-depth than “do good”. I liked New 52 Superman being “Champion of the Oppressed” and not being afraid to tackle corporate corruption or police brutality. I want to know how Clark defines doing good and why his limits are the way they are. I want him to be challenged on his moral code, and he has been multiple times. But with Jon there was an opportunity for someone who isn’t an enemy to question why Clark is the way he is, and for Clark to examine his values and see how they hold up.

That said I personally love that scene in Imperius Lex where Lex calls Clark out on his hypocrisy regarding second chances. Clark is big on saying that everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves but he was clearly unhappy with Lex’s attempt at heroism and I liked that. The fact that Clark himself doesn’t often live up to his own principles is a perfectly fine way of showing Supes isn’t perfect without going full edgelord.

[Konja7]

I don’t really want him to be “morally ambiguous” either and I don’t think Myskin is arguing for that. What I’m interested in is Clark having a set of principles that goes more in-depth than “do good”. I liked New 52 Superman being “Champion of the Oppressed” and not being afraid to tackle corporate corruption or police brutality. I want to know how Clark defines doing good and why his limits are the way they are. I want him to be challenged on his moral code, and he has been multiple times. But with Jon there was an opportunity for someone who isn’t an enemy to question why Clark is the way he is, and for Clark to examine his values and see how they hold up.

That said I personally love that scene in Imperius Lex where Lex calls Clark out on his hypocrisy regarding second chances. Clark is big on saying that everyone deserves a chance to redeem themselves but he was clearly unhappy with Lex’s attempt at heroism and I liked that. The fact that Clark himself doesn’t often live up to his own principles is a perfectly fine way of showing Supes isn’t perfect without going full edgelord.

The problem is you can't really enter in "Champion of the Opressed" without enter in a "morally ambiguous" territory.

It would not necessarily be morally ambiguous for you or me, but it would be people who will find this morally ambiguous.

As you said, people complaint about some of these aspects for Superman in New52.


In itself, DC doesn't seem to want Superman explain what "do good" is for him (only a very basic level). Superman just do what is good.

[Robanker]

I remember that one time during Rebirth, Clark stopped some shooter from killing immigrants because "they took er jerbs" and Fox news ran some op/ed piece about how The Man of Steel went hippie or something. Superman has this weird distinction of being a social crusader, but also symbol of America which is obviously interpreted differently depending on your political views. Those two can find themselves at odds in a really big, stupid way. I'm of the mind that Clark should always weigh in on defending everyday people as opposed to some lofty ideal, so if he's gotta ruffle some feathers to do what he feels is right, he absolutely should. Rebirth definitely could have used scenes where perhaps someone was getting away with something because they abused a technicality or their skills and Clark/Jon/Lois find a way to set it right.

I can't remember the exact instance, but not too long ago there was some march (I think it was a pride parade or some such) that was interrupted by a hate group and the police escorted them to ensure it never became violent. Clark and Jon should have quickly dropped a tractor on each one of those assholes cars or something. They clearly went there to incite some sort of unrest or cause harm, physical or emotional, to innocent people simply celebrating their existence. Sure, technically a law wasn't broken, but they were baiting it and I've read way too much Silver Age Superman to think Clark doesn't have a mischievous bone in his body, one that his and Lois's son would have as well. Yeah, it's vandalism and my god, think of the children who look up to him. I'm not saying he and Jon should share a milkshake and a laugh after that, or am I? I do love milkshakes.


Or just have them outright show up and make them leave, taking a stand, and then getting chastised for it on some extreme right news publications for overstepping their bounds against authority. Jon could ask why they're getting flak for doing what's right and Clark could let him know that sometimes the right thing isn't easy and sometimes not everyone sees it. Ultimately, he has to go with his gut and it can get him in trouble, but that shouldn't prevent him from acting.


All that aside, I loved Rebirth. One of my favorite eras. I also quite like Post-Crisis which I know isn't the most popular. I think each have flaws, especially Post-Crisis, but none are perfect. Honestly, less than Clark not going hard into teaching Jon, I feel Lois was underserved by it way worse than the Rockwell vibe hurt the family dynamic.

I will however say that I am so glad we never got edgy Jon. My god, I would have hated every panel of it. I cannot fathom a worse direction for him, especially considering Damian is basically the concept of "the son you hoped against but are saddled with," Jon (like Clark) was the parenting success story; if you raise your kids with kindness, love and attention, they'll turn out alright. At worst, I want a little more mischief in older Jon. Again, he's Clark's son but also Lois's. If anything, that's the biggest crime in his post age-up characterization: he's a generic good teen. Put a Letterman jacket on him and he'd do fine in '60s Riverdale.

In itself, DC doesn't seem to want Superman explain what "do good" is for him (only a very basic level). Superman just do what is good.

They want him to do unquestionable good. Nobody hates firemen, for example, because they literally don't do anything except save people from burning buildings, help with community issues or act as first responders. Even if you're setting fires, you deal with cops, not them. Didio has admitted he sees Clark as a fireman, something I don't really care for as a label, thematic or otherwise, because it doesn't really fit with how I view Clark; he's a good Samaritan, someone who is there to help, no more or less, and it doesn't matter what the problem is. DC, however, wants him to deal with inoffensive issues. They want one of their biggest heroes to be some generic good dude who always bunts underhand pitches for a base hit of 35-45k sales.

Over in Batman? Joker's wearing his surgically removed face with staples and string while his girlfriend is blowing up some kids to impress him. Batman himself? Punching his former ward because someone made him feel bad about himself or something? Give me a break, man. They're afraid to do anything with Clark in ways they aren't with other properties and it's maddening. DC editorial gets Superman less than I got dates in high school.

[Myskin]

I don’t really want him to be “morally ambiguous” either and I don’t think Myskin is arguing for that. What I’m interested in is Clark having a set of principles that goes more in-depth than “do good”..

Correct.
This juxtaposition generically benevolent/morally ambiguous Superman doesn't really exist. What writers should do, or should have done, is/was portraying Superman as a moral authority in an interesting, compelling, credible way. But that would have taken a lot of efforts, talent and probably guts on DC's part - describing a father/son relationship is one of the most difficult tasks a writer can face. They followed the "generically benevolent samaritan" route, as it always happens and as it has always happened with Superman in the latest, I don't know, 30 years?

There was a moment, decades ago, when DC and fans, in a bizarre silent agreement, simply decided that it wasn't true that Clark Kent could be called Superman because of his moral stature, but rather that he was a moral authority BECAUSE he was Superman. As if every single piece of advice which came out of his super-mouth was wise and right, no matter how generic it was. The Jon/Clark relationship Rebirth era is just the latest step in this cursed path. I am not saying that before the moment when they decided to take this road (somewhen after the Byrne era or maybe even earlier) Superman was the best-written character ever, but his "moral moments" were just along the lines of other superheroes in those days (even Batman was somehow preachy). It's just that at one point Superman stopped evolving (and other characters didn't). Longtime readers are somehow surprised that non-Superman fans don't find the character compelling, but if they want to find excellent examples of why a lot of people don't like Superman they shouldn't look any further from these generic father/son moments in the Rebirth era. Or a lot of equally rhetorical moments in the latest 30 years.

There is a vaguely Trumpian adherence on a lot of fans' part to the "Superman as the most important moral figure in the DCU" thing, but it's as if they are living in a bubble without realizing that in the latest decades everything changed - society, comic books, morality, politics, the mere concept of United States - and Superman, instead of evolving into a more complex, more sophisticated figure, stayed the same. And it's not that DC didn't try to put some efforts in putting Superman at moral crossroads - New Krypton, President Luthor, Grounded, The Truth, etc. - because they somehow KNOW that this is a huge problem at the core of the character. However, no matter how interesting the moral challenge was, they simply dropped the ball at one point for a variety of reasons. If I had to summarize the reasons for Superman's failure at facing really interesting moral challenges, I'd say that all evidence shows that his set of morals and his ethics are simply too simplistic and naive to be really helpful in morally complex situations. It's as if they had appointed a member of the Junior Woodchucks to solve an international crisis between Russia and US.

In this case, the solution generally adopted by DC is: instead of making Superman evolve, let's make everything around him coherent with his current personality. That's how this father/son moments are created, or even literally every single exchange between Clark and Jonathan Kent sr. That's also why Doomsday Clock is basically a challenge between Superman and a seriously dumbed down version of Doctor Manhattan. It's not impossible to write these stories in a good way - most of aforementioned concepts above (President Luthor etc) are very good, but again - it would take a lot of efforts on DC's part to really make it. And if someone thinks that a more compelling version of the character may prove divisive, well, I'd say that it is worth taking the risk, because the current path is just the unstoppable decline of a character whom only progressively older fans read.

[manwhohaseverything]

TL;DR Myskin thinks that trying to paint Clark as this moral authority but having him spout rather generic feel-good moral teachings that don’t actually mean anything in practical terms is bad. I would agree but every time New 52 Superman took a stand on something, like protesting police brutality, people lost their bloody minds, so I can’t blame Tomasi too much for just doing what has become a hallmark of Supes. Tomasi wasn’t out to redefine the character, just tell straightforward entertaining stories with Supes, and after the tail end of the New 52 where everything was a massive status quo shake up I quite enjoyed that.

What would you say is one of the best Superman eras? Genuinely curious and you don’t post that often but I always find your posts interesting.

How is that connected to jon's existence? He says Jon's existence excuses Clark's paternalism . Which is a load of bullshit to me. First i don't see any paternalism in this. This is the same stupid argument korath used to make against "all star superman" . If writers want to write clark as "the champion of the oppressed", they can. They just need to focus on the oppressed. Regardless, rebirth clark does help everyone. The scene @myskin provided had no such great truths. He wants some great philosophical speech. But, the scene wasn't meant for that. If he has other scene like this there must be a context to thst as well. If it doesn't i am willing to say that clark was being paternalistic. How is clark being soft spoken and optimistic termed as paternalistic is beyond me.

Clark goes around saving people. Takes sides when needed. What else can the guy do? At the end of the day clark is only a man. It is not like clark will solve corruption or world hunger. These are part of his never ending battle and too complex a matter even for clark. How on earth is a 10 year old going to understand all this. When clark say do the right thing to jon. It probably are the simple things like standing upto a school bully for others in class, helping cat out of a tree, doing you chores, being truthful toward parents, helping someone cross the street .. Etc. These aren't complex and the complex things shouldn't be on the mind of a 10 year old.That was how clark was raising him. How is that bad?
I don't understand the non-practicality argument. since when is being nice, saying good things non practical. What is clark suppose to say? World is **** get over it. I don't even understand how clark taking a side on police brutality and exposing the culprit a major redefinition of the character. Isn't the natural thing for clark to do? Vice versa helping a good police officers do their job is also natural thing to do clark.