Originally Posted by
Jared S
Age is an integral part of characterization. Characters who are younger act differently, have different expectations placed upon them, and are viewed differently. To change a character's age dramatically is, in essence, to turn them into a different person. The new character can only be tangentially related to the old.
Because of this, there are certain stories that are simply better with child characters. You could NOT have told the same story with an older character, even if that character had the same personality. Mark Twain would have changed beyond recognition if the main character were an adult. The Chronicles of Narnia would have been a different all together if Lucy was 19. There is an aspect of the person that changes in aging, closing up some story options, while opening up others. In this case, I would argue that Jon as a child was exploring an aspect of Superman comics that was previously unexplored, and aging him up removes this.
____________________
Personally, I don't actually think there is any inherent problem with having two Superboys the same age, so long as they have different characterizations and are drawn so that we can distinguish between the two at a glance. I would rather see Jon and Conner have a "younger brother/older brother" relationship, though, instead of being just peers. I think it would be more interesting, and would give the Superfamily a more interesting dynamic (unlike the Batfamily, they seem extremely distant). I don't know if you can do that with two characters who are basically the same age.
That being said, you seem to be criticizing Jon as a flat, "token child" character who is nothing aside from being young. While I do think that being a 10-yr old was important to the character and the story, I don't think that was all there was to his personality. [In all fairness, however, the characters with which you compared him have literally decades of story development, whereas Jon has had only two years of story development. It shouldn't be surprising that he isn't as complicated as any of them yet.] I don't think it's true that someone who is critical of this move is inherently more fascinated with Jon's "concept in a panoramic sense." I can name several character traits Jon has, that, while informed and made better by the fact that he is a child-character, are not just copied from some sort of "universal child archetype." Ultimately, I don't think being a young child is somehow inherent to Jon's nature; I would be fine with him growing up slowly, as the story progresses.
I DO have a problem with seven-years worth of character development and relationship development that I was looking forward to reading suddenly being shoved behind the scenes and explained in, at worst, a few comic flashbacks, or at best, a maxi-series where he can never interact with the main cast I'm interested in seeing him interact with. Who cares who he meets in space or what he does? I would rather see him interacting with his Mom, Dad, Kara, Kon-El, Lor Zod, and Damian (and other, new people) than go through the tedium of some sort of "lost in space" adventure.
Honestly, for that reason, I don't think there is any pathway forward that Bendis can use to win me over. (I suppose I could be proven wrong, but I can't see how. At any rate, I couldn't devise a conclusion to this story that would satisfy me.) Even if the new Jon is a fun character, we will still miss out on all of those important stories and relationships, and that alone is enough to make me dislike it. If Jon is characterized badly, it was obviously a bad decision. If he is characterized well, then I would have rather seen him develop into that character over time rather than having it happen off-stage. If he does not change at all, then it's bad writing. No matter what happens, I will miss the novelty of seeing the world of Superman through a child's eyes and the relationship between a father and his young son. For me at least, Bendis has gone and written himself into a corner.