Superman as an everyman

[HeroVladimir93]

This is just my opinion, obviously, but whenever I read Superman: Secret Origin, I feel that Geoff Johns tries to connect to the everyman aspect of Superman and rather than depict him as a mythical and legendary hero, he instead writes him as just a guy trying to do the right thing. First, let's remember what an everyman is: a character that gets put into extraordinary circumstances and is meant to represent the audience. Secret Origin is my favorite origin story for Superman, and one of the big factors for that is that it humanizes Superman and makes him more likable to the average reader.

Superman is a highly versatile character and can be put into several roles; such as champion of social justice, spacefaring adventurer or even reluctant messiah, but it takes a genuinely skilled writer to make those stories as effective and amazing as possible; after all, creativity is an art, not a science. Not every story out there needs to characterize Superman as an everyman, and some stories can only work if they portray Superman as epic and larger-than-life as possible, like All-Star Superman; but in the right hands, Superman can work as an everyman, the same way Spider-Man does over at Marvel. This is an interesting approach that DC should at least consider for Superman in future stories.

Do you think Superman can benefit from an everyman approach? Do you know any other stories that portray Superman as an everyman? I'd like to read your opinions below.
Superman.jpg

[Yoda]

I really liked American Alien. Max Landis has his issues, but it was a really well done exploration of Clark growing into Superman, "a good guy with spare time." Brought me back into the Superman comics after I lost interest in the New 52 version.

[Sacred Knight]

I definitely think that's how Johns prefers to write him, and its the reason I dislike his Superman stuff so much. With all due respect to the differing opinion of course but to me, in no shape or form should Superman ever be depicted as an everyman in a general sense. Its right in his name what he is and what he was created to be. Super. Specifically not like anyone else. So no, in my opinion he rarely if ever benefits from such a showing. If anything concentrated movements extra-emphasizing humanizing, grounding, being an everyman, and the like are key things that I largely blame for the character's decline in the past few decades.

[Ascended]

It's.....a viable approach, I guess. Though I myself cannot stand it. It's had its success of course; the triangle era is highly regarded even by fans like me who prefer a more pre-Crisis SUPERman approach over the superMAN alternative of post-Crisis. The Lois & Clark tv show proved that the everyman approach works for Clark in wider media. And there are lots of aspects about Clark Kent that are indeed very "everyman" like in every incarnation.

But ultimately I feel like the everyman approach goes about things backwards. Superman, to me, shouldn't be a regular guy pushed into extraordinary circumstances; he should be an extraordinary guy pushed into ordinary circumstances, filtered though the lens that is Clark himself.

Superman is one of those weird characters who, at first glance, everybody should be able to write. But I think if you really want to get the character right, there's a certain duality to him that you can't ignore. This is where Byrne failed and Landis succeeded. Byrne treated Clark like he was, 100%, a regular guy. He was all superMAN, and the character ended up losing a lot of his appeal because of it. All the weird and strange got sucked out of his world and he became rather generic. A nicer person than most, perhaps, but generic. Landis on the other hand, wrote Clark as a regular "everyman" archetype, but didn't forget that there's a whole side of Clark that is not in any way normal and Clark had to deal with that dissonance. And I think that approach resonates stronger because all of us feel like we have that side to us that doesn't fit or conform. Bynre's Clark only resonates with half of who we are; the regular person who wishes they were the prom king and football star and had the perfect job. But Landis appealed to that aspect while also acknowledging that just like Clark, all of us are stranger visitors too.

Not sure if I'm making any sense here. Typing inbetween notes for a midterm tomorrow.

[Yoda]

It's.....a viable approach, I guess. Though I myself cannot stand it. It's had its success of course; the triangle era is highly regarded even by fans like me who prefer a more pre-Crisis SUPERman approach over the superMAN alternative of post-Crisis. The Lois & Clark tv show proved that the everyman approach works for Clark in wider media. And there are lots of aspects about Clark Kent that are indeed very "everyman" like in every incarnation.

But ultimately I feel like the everyman approach goes about things backwards. Superman, to me, shouldn't be a regular guy pushed into extraordinary circumstances; he should be an extraordinary guy pushed into ordinary circumstances, filtered though the lens that is Clark himself.

Superman is one of those weird characters who, at first glance, everybody should be able to write. But I think if you really want to get the character right, there's a certain duality to him that you can't ignore. This is where Byrne failed and Landis succeeded. Byrne treated Clark like he was, 100%, a regular guy. He was all superMAN, and the character ended up losing a lot of his appeal because of it. All the weird and strange got sucked out of his world and he became rather generic. A nicer person than most, perhaps, but generic. Landis on the other hand, wrote Clark as a regular "everyman" archetype, but didn't forget that there's a whole side of Clark that is not in any way normal and Clark had to deal with that dissonance. And I think that approach resonates stronger because all of us feel like we have that side to us that doesn't fit or conform. Bynre's Clark only resonates with half of who we are; the regular person who wishes they were the prom king and football star and had the perfect job. But Landis appealed to that aspect while also acknowledging that just like Clark, all of us are stranger visitors too.

Not sure if I'm making any sense here. Typing inbetween notes for a midterm tomorrow.

I don't really consider Brynes version an "everyman". His Clark was an idealized man IMHO. He had no problems as a kid or young adult. Popular, professionally successful, nothing to overcome, etc. That to me is not an everyman. I agree though that Landis' version had problems that were relatable but filtered through the fantastic elements of the character.

[Ascended]

If anything concentrated movements extra-emphasizing humanizing, grounding, being an everyman, and the like are key things that I largely blame for the character's decline in the past few decades.

I often feel the same way, but I think it might be unfair to blame all (or even most) of Clark's problems on the everyman approach that kicked off post-Crisis. I mean, it could very well be exactly that; the loss of the super in Superman, but there's so many variables there I feel like maybe I'm just blaming the thing I don't like for the character's troubles, you know?

I don't really consider Brynes version an "everyman". His Clark was an idealized man IMHO. He had no problems as a kid or young adult. Popular, professionally successful, nothing to overcome, etc. That to me is not an everyman. I agree though that Landis' version had problems that were relatable but filtered through the fantastic elements of the character.

Yeah, it's a little weird, because Clark was too successful to qualify as what we normally consider an "everyman" but I think Byrne was trying to do some sort of.....like, super-everyman thing, where life is just crazy easy but it's still just a regular, mundane life with a regular, mundane, good ol American boy.

[Sacred Knight]

I agree, its not fair to blame his decline after the initial success of the reboot on any one thing. That's why I say I largely blame it on that; I think it has a lot to do with it but not the only thing to do with it. There's also other things that nothing could help, like the dark hero craze of the late 90s that has yet to abate in a sense.

[Kuwagaton]

Like most things, I feel as though Superman has been in and out of the "everyman" description. Ever since the mid 40s I guess, he's had a pretty strong mix or transition of basically embodying the plot (that was just kinda how stories were told back then, like the characters couldn't be bothered with all that irrelevant "living" stuff for more than a panel) and a regular man however far removed from a normal scale (jealousy leading to pretty much death or humiliation for his friends). I think post crisis Wolfman was the first to really bring the "everyman" to a direct translation. Like confronting your girlfriend's d-bag ex not because you have some obligation like he's a super villain, but because he's a d-bag.

And I like stuff like that most of all. I like Clark having normal preferences for normal things and letting us in, so that when he's in a deadly battle for the universe we can stop and think of how he prefers to paint the house in Ray Bans instead of goggles because he likes the way he looks in them.

[GreatKungLao]

Superman is the character that should be both. Not SUPERman or superMAN, but SUPERMAN. I don't like God-like depiction. I've learned through many fictions that Gods don't care about people, they care only about events that they can spot from Olympus and feel need to intervene. I think there should be a grandeur reason why he has three major names in Kal-El, Clark Kent and Superman. Superman is unification of his Kryptonian and Earthling origins, he is a bridge between normal and extraordinary. I'm just as interested to see his cosmic/multidimensional/multiverse stories, events and adventrues as I'm interested to see him standing up to a sexual harasser like in Man of Steel. In order to be connected to people and be their actual hero, he should be able to understand their problems on human level by living among them and incorporating their way of life, which he can't do if he is only SUPERman. I'm not a fan when Superman is worshiped more like God rather than like an ideal to strive towards, like a good person that everyone can be no matter what they possess physically.



This scene depicts how I see his transitioning and how he unifies both everyman and extraordinary. In one scene he is on a spaceship talking to an AI of his dead father from Krypton who tells him once again that he is meant for great things and then we see him rescuing Lois and looking at her like a man in a process of falling in love with another person. Then we see him go super on Zod, because he got angry that his mom got attacked, again we see a symbiosm of his everyman and extraordinary sides when he uses his super powers to punch Zod, but he does that because he humanly cares about Martha.

First 20 minutes of Man of Steel do a great job at making you swallow the fact that Superman is not human, but further into story it shows how he can actually be human, an extraordinary human who is capable of amazing things that you would see only on screen, but the way he uses those fill you with confidence that you are capable of something like that. Not flying, but something kindly and goodly amazing.

This is how I like Superman. When he inspires to act extraordinary in your ordinary life. When he uses all of his supernatual in most human way possible, with emotions and feel of actual struggle that he has to overcome in order to succeed. When Superman does everything at ease it's not inspirational, it's just escapism. When Superman is troubled like you and goes through something difficult before he can actually take a win, that struggle inspires you to overcome yours. Which is why MoS and BvS are my favorite Superman stories. He actually had to suffer, struggle, doubt, even feel depressed and question his own existence and if what he was doing was worth at all if the world around him keeps being so bad, but in the end after self searching travel into the mountains, his place to get his thoughts into right order that would help him make sense of everything that happens around him. There are a lot of different kind of people in the world and not all of them happen to be as lucky as Clark Kent, so if you don't put him through something hard, it's harder to connect with him, because life is not easy and if you want to inspire me, let me see a story where you had to go through a rough time and not make all perfect decisions like I can't do. Let me see a story where circumstances weren't written for you, but against you and how you overcame it.

That's my answer for you.

[The World]

eh I don't think anyone really wants Superman to be an everyman; even the people that say they do don't really want him to. Most people are in agreement that diseases are bad and should go away and most of us on some level probably want them to go away but few of us actually want to see Superman act on what would be important human issues. We usually want Superman to stay out of human problems thus creating a very real barrier between Clark Kent and the human race. The other things he does are basically just novelties ala going to work to make money he doesn't need, or buying food he doesn't need to eat, living in a house that he doesn't need either. People are finicky about which emotions he's allowed to feel which puts another big hole in the everyman approach.

[Superfan90]

No, Superman isn't an everyman. He is a God among men with abilities far beyond any mortal men, the man of tomorrow and the ideal version of humanity. He isn't and shouldn't be an everyman anymore than Batman needs to be an average detective or Flash needs to be just 2nd or 3rd fastest man alive.

[GreatKungLao]

How can a God be an ideal version of humanity if he doesn't act or considers himself a human?

Lets face the facts: he is just an alien who was born on Krypton where he is the same as regular human being or anywhere else without yellow sun. He is mortal who got lucky DNA. Are we gonna pretend that every alien that comes to Earth is a God? Try Stargate series, that doesn't end well.

Superman is Hercules, not Zeus.

[Sacred Knight]

For the majority of the history of the lore, Kryptonians are not the same as any regular human being even on Krypton. Its not just the sun that makes him different, and more "advanced" than a normal human. That's built into his DNA in ways not related to a solar battery.

[GreatKungLao]

For the majority of the history of the lore, Kryptonians are not the same as any regular human being even on Krypton. Its not just the sun that makes him different, and more "advanced" than a normal human. That's built into his DNA in ways not related to a solar battery.

That's still makes him just an alien. Alien is not a God. An alien can be everyman or a human can be just as extraordinary as Superman. Hal Jordan for example.

[Sacred Knight]

Not disputing he's an alien, just that at the same time its not applicable to say he'd still be much like a human being on Krypton. Its not heritage that I feel excludes him from being portrayed in general as a an everyman, rather the intentions of those who created the character and those who followed him. Nor do I operate on the idea that he's just an alien who got lucky with these powers and that anyone else in his place would be the same as he. I think Kal-El is more special than that. Why does Superman have nearly the powers of a god? We know the logical reason of how he gets his powers, but I like to see it as deeper than that. Some quantifiable factors, some not, that go into just how powerful he is, just how he can consistently, to use an anime phrase, surpass his own limits. For instance his love of humanity that drives him. His innate goodness, his pure of heart. And just a little bit of that unquantifiable "he's special". A special quality that puts him in a different league from either other Kryptonians who benefit from the same abilities as he. That's how I see Superman.

Now, those are my specific ideals. Every detail I personally outline isn't law or anything. But I have no desire to read a Superman by any writer or see him portrayed on any screen where the aim is to make him as much like a regular person as possible. Entirely defeats the purpose in my eyes.