Official : Bendis gets both books

[manwhohaseverything]

You got it all wrong actually. I used to think Clark would be a great father and I started out as a hardcore post-Crisis fan. That's the era I came up with, the Death-Return triangle era was my first exposure to the comics and for like, ten years I never missed a single issue. That was my guy. And I thought the same way you did.

Then I started to really look at the character; not what I wanted/expected Clark to be or the emotional resonance of a story but what was actually on the page. I dont intend to sound mean here, we all have our preferences and I'm not attacking anyone for that, but the characterization that is on the page itself? Including post-Crisis? Clark's bad with family. That's just basic literary analysis and it's not very hard to see it. That's not a matter of what I want, that's who Clark is, and it's established over and over again. Not seeing it is just blinding yourself to an aspect of the character you don't like.

If you don't like it, that's cool. No one said you had to. But that's who Clark is. What you (or I) want is immaterial; apply some basic lit analysis and you'll see that I'm right. Or you can just read the last couple pages of this thread; myself and others have all mentioned the many, many times Clark, including post-Crisis, failed at family (he does do it right on occasion too; he's not 100% horrible). You don't have to like it, but let's not pretend it's not who he is, because eighty years of stories tell us otherwise.

So yeah, Tomasi got it wrong. He just got it wrong in a way you enjoyed. Which doesn't change the fact he got it wrong. And we can say that, in the ten years we never saw, Clark changed and grew and became a better father. I got no issue with a character growing and changing. But that is a huge change to how Clark has always been written (including post-Crisis, stop thinking this is a pre- versus post-Crisis thing, because it's not, Clark's struggle with blood relatives isn't limited to any particular version!) and for me, you don't get to sweep a change that big under the rug and then say it's okay. If you're going to change how Clark interacts with people to that big a degree then readers deserve to see that change unfold; otherwise it's not character growth, it's just writing Clark out of character and making excuses for it.

Oh, and the scene you posted with Pa Kent? Doesn't apply. Clark's always had a good relationship with the Kents. What he struggles with is blood relations like Kara and Conner and people like Valor, not his adopted parents.

I never really questioned you liking or lack there of postcrisis superman. because that doesn't really matter. I don't particularly care for postcrisis superman,myself but that is besides the point. I just don't like muddying things. Pushing farmboy characterisation to precrisis guy is just that. You prefer that but i hate it. I like to read postcrisis guy when i am reading postcrisis guy.Not postcrisis guy with precrisis parts. Similarly, i like to read precrisis guy when i read that, not precrisis guy with parts of postcrisis. It's just confusing characterisation wise. I like to do things by putting the character first in regards to things like this. It feels like torquasm what-you-might-call-it being shoved in just cause martial arts is 'kewl'. It didn't stick because it didn't fit the character .

Your analysis just feels more it takes the precrisis characterisation into account involuntarily.

Again, why though? If you explain why i can maybe concede. Postcrisis superman has no reason to be bad at family . He doesn't have a persona. So no dual identity. He just has secrets like everone else in the world. That's the only 'catch' for the guy. Otherwise, He generally has healthy relationships.Not a loner. He doesn't keep people at arm's length much. Infact, goes back running to talk to any close friend or parents when he is confused. He is for all intents and purposes 'normal' , emotionally.His powers started coming, later.As a matter of fact, He should be bad at handling the wierd in terms of relationships and other things.for eg:- conner who was his clone(see, it fits. Involuntarily, i might add. I didn't mean for it to. Even, then he wouldn't be like the young justice version. That's not lovable). He shouldn't have problems with straight one to one relationships like having a cousin or birthing a son.

I see postcrisis clark as more of a goofy overbearing dad. Which he was in the kara's reintroduction arc.it is only when the precrisis guy bleeds into postcrisis guy's characterisation, He goes all "i trapped you in phantom zone, mon el"(note:-i am strictly talking about Superman's characterisation himself . Not characters that existed precisis that were reestablished).it is basically an amalgamation problem.

Aesthetically, it just doesn't fit. How can a shitty father troupe fit a lovable farmboy?he seizes to be lovable if he is bad at family. Pulling both of will be vexing and convoluted.

Again, jurgens is the expert on postcrisis guy. Nobody knows that particular version of the character like he does. He built the guy in a way more so than byrne did.He is a writer who understands character driven story telling than i do. So, i am just going to believe he is right.unless you have a counter point.

That picture i posted was to show the best representation of the post crisis guy,in my opinion. Not to make a point regarding Clark's troupes.i mean, It is character driven with clarity. It encapsulated everything about this particular version of the character. It conveys ideas through the character and world. Jurgens writes an awesome postcrisis guy. But, somehow superman for all seasons is just magical for lack of a better word. That is the postcrisis superman for me.

[Yoda]

Again.

Clark is bad in these relationships, because the writers want characters like Conner and Kara (and teen Jon) to be more independent. They want Clark to be apart of these characters.

"Clark not taking care of his blood relatives" isn't a flaw the writers see in the character, it is just the more convenient for their stories.

Superdad (or something similar) is what happens when the writers want Clark to take care of a person and form a true relationship.

And the examples are highly specific as well. The circumstances of Conner and Kara's entries into his life are distinguishable. It's not a good faith argument to say that the reaction to Conner, a clone created without his knowledge or consent, translates into how he'd raise a child with his wife. Moreover, they tried and were well on their way to raising Chris and doing a good job at it. Kara as well, particularly Post-Crisis Kara Zor El he has a great relationship with that's appropriate for the context of her being essentially almost an adult. She didn't need or want to be raised by him and they were close.

To take those examples and say he has no interest in his family or would be a terrible father is a stretch. The relationship he has with Pa is highly relevant, because that's his example of parenting. That'd be what he measured himself against and would try - and did try - to emulate.

[Ascended]

Again.

Clark is bad in these relationships, because the writers want characters like Conner and Kara (and teen Jon) to be more independent.

And? It doesn't matter why Clark has been written this way. This is the way he's usually been characterized for eight decades across multiple versions and continuities and adaptations. Therefore, that is his character. Clark's character is what is on the page/screen, not why it's there or what someone wishes it were instead.

I understand the reasoning behind this particular personality trait (seriously, it's not rocket science, you're not explaining anything anyone here doesn't already know). But the reasoning is a non-issue; the end result is that Clark struggles with family. Whatever DC's reasons for it, whether someone likes it or not.....it doesn't matter. And if DC wants to change it, and they want to actually do a good job of transitioning Clark from one personality trait to another, they have to work to make that happen and earn it, not write him out of character and hand wave it away with some stupid "oh you just never saw it" nonsense.

Using examples is a poor choice in debate, but here's one anyway. Let's say the next issue of Flash has Barry Allen drinking at bars, being loud and obnoxious and starting fist fights. Let's say it comes out of nowhere; there's no meaningful build-up except a caption on the first page that says "Barry spent ten years lost in time and he became a redneck drunk" but we never got to see that happen and we never experienced this shift in his character. Would that be okay? Would fans accept that? No. They'd demand, at the very least, some flashbacks that showed why and how he changed so much. So why is it okay to break Clark's character the same way? Just because you happen to like it more? That's a slippery slope.

In any event, I feel like I've contributed to a lot of de-railing in this thread and the only rebuttals I've seen is "I like it this way more" which isn't worth squat and has nothing to do with characterization. I apologize for cluttering the thread with this, and I'm finished with it. Unless someone shows up with actual analysis that provides a real counter argument and not just "I like it like this" I'm not going to contribute further to de-railing a thread that's about the current run and not Clark's overall historic characterization. But I want to make it clear that I got no beef with any of you; we disagree here but that's okay and I still got nothing but respect for my fellow fans....even if you are wrong. (joking)

[Konja7]

And? It doesn't matter why Clark has been written this way. This is the way he's usually been characterized for eight decades across multiple versions and continuities and adaptations. Therefore, that is his character. Clark's character is what is on the page/screen, not why it's there or what someone wishes it were instead.

I understand the reasoning behind this particular personality trait (seriously, it's not rocket science, you're not explaining anything anyone here doesn't already know). But the reasoning is a non-issue; the end result is that Clark struggles with family. Whatever DC's reasons for it, whether someone likes it or not.....it doesn't matter. And if DC wants to change it, and they want to actually do a good job of transitioning Clark from one personality trait to another, they have to work to make that happen and earn it, not write him out of character and hand wave it away with some stupid "oh you just never saw it" nonsense.

Using examples is a poor choice in debate, but here's one anyway. Let's say the next issue of Flash has Barry Allen drinking at bars, being loud and obnoxious and starting fist fights. Let's say it comes out of nowhere; there's no meaningful build-up except a caption on the first page that says "Barry spent ten years lost in time and he became a redneck drunk" but we never got to see that happen and we never experienced this shift in his character. Would that be okay? Would fans accept that? No. They'd demand, at the very least, some flashbacks that showed why and how he changed so much. So why is it okay to break Clark's character the same way? Just because you happen to like it more? That's a slippery slope.

In any event, I feel like I've contributed to a lot of de-railing in this thread and the only rebuttals I've seen is "I like it this way more" which isn't worth squat and has nothing to do with characterization. I apologize for cluttering the thread with this, and I'm finished with it. Unless someone shows up with actual analysis that provides a real counter argument and not just "I like it like this" I'm not going to contribute further to de-railing a thread that's about the current run and not Clark's overall historic characterization. But I want to make it clear that I got no beef with any of you; we disagree here but that's okay and I still got nothing but respect for my fellow fans....even if you are wrong. (joking)

The thing is that Clark being a good father isn't out of character. At least, I don't think DC or writers think Clark struggles with family.

I understand your point about this topic. However, I think it is difficult they will show his "change about family" in a flasback when they don't think he struggles with family to start.

I agree this could be de-railing the topic too much.

[Kuwagaton]

Yeah, I'm not sure what's happened to Romita lately. His work just doesn't seem as polished as it used to .

JRJR and Simonson are probably some of the last high profile artists who use their own style instead of hitting the scale between photorealistic and anime. I think Year One #3 was a real high point for him, though as in this case his covers tend to feel more panels.

[Myskin]

JRJR and Simonson are probably some of the last high profile artists who use their own style instead of hitting the scale between photorealistic and anime. I think Year One #3 was a real high point for him, though as in this case his covers tend to feel more panels.

Agree.
And by the way, are there any covers for the upcoming battle of Metropolis or whatever they want to call it? I have seen only unfinished interiors.

[Vordan]

Agree.
And by the way, are there any covers for the upcoming battle of Metropolis or whatever they want to call it? I have seen only unfinished interiors.

Romita Jr. is drawing the covers for the Invisible War. They... don’t look great.

[Myskin]

Romita Jr. is drawing the covers for the Invisible War. They... don’t look great.

The covers I've seen for the Invisible War don't look like covers (IMH they are from the story), and certainly aren't finished.

[Flash Gordon]

Romita Jr. is drawing the covers for the Invisible War. They... don’t look great.

The piece with Apex Lex fighting Leviathan looked dope. JRjr has still got it.

[Robanker]

I think the caveat for Clark's struggles with mentoring heroes and his characterization with Superdad is that he either was able to prepare himself through Lois' pregnancy or, admittedly somewhat crumby of him, it's different because it's his own flesh and blood. I prefer to think the former, as he was able to consent to mentoring his own boy instead of how usually his family characters are thrust into his life... and because it would make him an absolute jackass to be the very model of adoption working out and then preferring his blood above all else. Counters his narrative.

It can be reconciled with him addressing he's been weak as a mentor/father figure before and had to try more than ever to raise his own son. I don't think it's so far gone that it's just outright out of character for Clark to become a good father figure, especially considering he's conceptually older and more experienced than he was during those examples we like to point to for his failure in this respect. We just never got to see that growth so it feels a little cheap, but given they were trying very hard to course correct from New 52 by going more bright and wholesome, I understand why it was downplayed.

[Vordan]

I think Clark would try to be a good dad but I don’t think he would be one right off the bat. And the reason why is quite simple: Unlike Pa Kent who raised Clark in a quiet Midwest/Great Plains rural community where his main job kept him right at home, Clark is freaking Superman. He’s going to be involved in all sorts of insanity that makes his ability to give Jon the same upbringing he got flat out impossible. His attention will be pulled in a 100 different directions at once. His son won’t be having to live up to the legend of Pa Kent, simple farmer but the greatest superhero who ever lived. Clark is going to have one of the biggest challenges ever on his hands. That’s why the one issue I liked during that big filler gap in Tomasi’s run was Keith Champagne’s. He had Jon argue with his father and act out and I liked that. Of course Jon would do that, his mother is Lois Lane and his best friend is freaking Damian. He’d look up to his father but also occasionally lash out as kids do, and Clark would have trouble managing that I think.

[Flash Gordon]

Superman is a man of action, he doesnt stick around to chat or give speeches. He barrels through walls and leaps tall buildings in a single bound. He's not really going to be a great dad, he's far too busy and in motion.

[seismic-2]

Remember that Clark and Lois lived under the Convergence dome for a couple of years simply as a married couple, with Clark's having no superpowers. During that time, Clark became accustomed to living a normal human life, Lois became pregnant, and they prepared for parenthood just like every human couple does. That experience certainly affected them both post-Convergence, when they were living on the farm in California and raising Jon from a baby up to about age 10. Since there already was a Superman in that Nu52 world, Superdad spent most of his time being farmer Clark, and he acted as the Superman-in-black only secretly. (He and Lois even hid it from Jon.) Being Clark, and being a husband and father, were his main concerns. Saving the world was just something he did sometimes to help back up the other Superman (who was unaware he existed). Although the two Supermen (and the two Lois Lanes) have now been merged and lost conscious memory of their "human" time in Convergence and their California life thereafter, surely those life experiences have helped shape the new composite characters. In light of that background, I would expect Clark to be a good father to Jon, just as Jonathan Kent was a good father to Clark.

[manwhohaseverything]

Superman is a man of action, he doesnt stick around to chat or give speeches. He barrels through walls and leaps tall buildings in a single bound. He's not really going to be a great dad, he's far too busy and in motion.

That's the original guy. He is all that. But, we are talking postcrisis here.

[Flash Gordon]

That's the original guy. He is all that. But, we are talking postcrisis here.

It's all the same to me, tbh