Lets talk about Jon on Earth-3

[Superlad93]

Jon's age up has been a point of contention since the got wind of the possibility what seems like so long ago. But perhaps a large source of controversy that I haven't really seen us as a community discuss in earnest is his time marooned on Earth-3.

Thoughts

Speaking for just myself: I was extremely unsure of the idea after I read issues 9 and 10 of Superman. I appreciated, if not outright loved, the concept of the trial by fire, I really dug the Ultraman dynamic, and I enjoyed the concept of him navigating a world diametrically opposed to everything he is......but 5 to 7 years of it gave me some serious pause. I had to really mull it over for a while to see where I really landed on it, and maybe get what Bendis' intention was with an idea this specific.

I'll admit my apprehension was coming in part from what I assumed the trip was like for Jon. You hear the set up, and it conjures to mind Jon having to huff it through space going on tons of unseen adventures. Technically he did do that, but you sort of expect that was mainly what he did if not all he did. So I had to battle those assumptions. The other half of why this made me pull back a bit was the fact that it was kind of a bummer to think about this kid being stranded on this awful world--trapped no less.

Then I thought "marooned", "stranded"; that how you'd describe someone being shipwrecked or, maybe more appropriately, thrown overboard and ending up on an island. Then you simply think "scale it up to Superman" and that's exactly what happened. That black hole was a spot of really bad "weather" because, like the sea, space is cruel and unpredictable mistress. Jon gets thrown overboard, and wakes up on a thrown through time on a new Earth as if it were an uncharted island. The analogy even extends to the crime syndicate scrapping over Jon like a pack of hungry dogs. These are you indigenous creatures. These are your predators.

The idea seems to be that this was essentially a super powered equivalent of the 1987 young-adult novel The Hatchet, or even 2000's Cast Away. The Hatchet being more appropriate due to it's closer parallels and focus on the coming of age of a young boy protagonist. That said, the length of time Jon spends on his "island" is more akin to Chuck's 4 years in Cast Away. Once I started to look at Earth-3 as an "island", and Ultraman and Superwoman the the big predatory creatures that our stranded young protagonist has to learn the patterns of and use his surroundings to outmaneuver it all started to make far more sense to me. Jon taking his time to move from the volcano to the first town, then the next, and so on is similar to the protagonist of on of these stranded-on-an-island novels having to slowly move from one spot on the island to another to up their chances of rescue or just survival. Even Jor-El rescuing him at the end plays greatly into the conventions of a shipwrecked/stranded story.

Even the concpet of having some sort of personal hand-up or issue before going on the trip and getting stranded is a trope of the stranded-on-and-island style story. Usually on the island the protagonist deals with manifestations or representations of their issues back in civilization, and they physically overcome the manifestation/representation and mentally overcome the actual issue. Jon pretty obviously does this with his issues of measuring up to his father and his legacy, and thinking he's destined for evil. I'm feeling pretty confident this was the intention.

______________________

Approaching the story from this angle really, really helped me engage with it and appreciate it on it's terms, and get what it was going for. Hopefully this post/thread helps someone else here do the same.

I'd love to discuss.

[Sam]

To be honest, I think you're reaching to try and justify the sloppiness of the story-telling during these issues. Jon wasn't trapped on an island. He was held prisoner in a ring of fire for five years. He was abused and tortured. What was done to him was purposeful and intentional, not a crazy twist of fate. So I don't feel like your comparison works. And if that a Hatchet-esque story was Bendis's intention, then he really missed the mark.

Jon Kent isn't Brian Robeson. He's a happy go-lucky-kid who wants to do good. To give him an island like Oliver Queen or a traumatic moment to guide him forward like Bruce Wayne isn't necessary. Brian never really escapes him experience in the Canadian Wilderness. It scars him and he is never able to lead a normal life afterwards.

This comparison puts places Jon in a problematic trend for experiencing trauma or even overcoming it to equate with growing up and becoming a man. It isn't. Stories like that line up with a weird romancing of old-school masculinity. "Killing makes you man" or "enduring pain makes up a man". "Suck it up. Push through it and it will make you stronger." Things like that don't make a person stronger. Jon Kent was already strong. He was already good. He was already more of a man than most adults and the evolution of a boy into a man is so much more complicated than one traumatic experience making you one.

Aging up Jon and the way it was done doesn't work. Comparisons to survivalist fiction doesn't change that.

[daBronzeBomma]

Hated it.

Completely unnecessary.

Another mistake that compounded an earlier mistake (aging up Jon in the first place).

So young Jon spent YEARS in prison being tortured by a guy who looked exactly like his loving father, over and over again, and I'm supposed to be OK with this type of storytelling?

Nope.

This is what pushed me off the Bendis bandwagon. The "reorganization" of Lois & Clark's marriage (gee, Bendis, how many apologies DID you get after AC#1004? None? Bet you were surprised) backfired badly on him, but could be forgiven and forgotten.

But this? Hell no.

This gets retconned the moment Bendis is off the Superverse at the latest, if not earlier.

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

I hate the way they went about aging up Jon way more than the actual idea of aging up kid (and I already hated that idea). Between making Lois and Clark the crappiest parents in the dcu. We’re supposed to believe that a kid spent 6 or 7 years of his life getting tortured physically and emotionally alone in a volcano, is going to come out of that barely phased by the ordeal? And I don’t mean turning evil, like Bendis loves to brag that he didn’t do. I mean traumatized and stunted from growing up under those conditions.

[U.N. Owen]

I would have taken a book about Jon eating cereal for seven years rather than this backstory. It's unnecessarily angsty except it somehow lacks the appropriate angst. I would compare this to Franklin Richards and his endless kidnapping adventures, but even those writers gave him appropriate trauma.

Still, I always hate the lack of creativity that went into this imprisonment plot.

[Sacred Knight]

I just found the years thing trying too hard. I have no problem with the general idea, that he's captured by Ultraman and his prisoner for a while. But a while is a relative term when you go too far in one direction or another it doesn't really work right. If he's only held for a day, well, big deal. If he's held for years? This goes back to what I said in trying too hard, and what I mean by that is that in the zeal to show how Jon can endure and not have his morals or identity compromised, you go too far to the point that if you don't show some consequences it becomes Mary Stu-ish and thus lacking emotion. I can't buy he was a prisoner for years with virtually no effect. This needed a middle ground. What if he's a prisoner for a month? That's no walk in the park, and still would have shown his strength of character when he got out, without it being so long its not believable.

[Yoda]

I see what you're getting at with the comparison, and I was totally on board for a Jon Kent: Lost in Space story arc. But what we actually got remains, after a few rereadings, a significant disappointment and missed opportunity to me. There are significant issues and misfires with each part of the arc that undermine various aspects of the story that maybe in isolation wouldn't have been that big of a deal, or could have worked had they been expanded on or if an editor had maybe stepped in and tweaked things just a smidge.

It starts with Lois in the first part. I don't have a problem really with her ultimate decision, I think that she should have been far more comfortable in space than shown, but the royalty aspect contrasting with their attempts at normalcy with their Earth life are a good hook to hinge a shift in her perspective on her family. It's the speed at which she arrived at after what was portrayed as essentially an afternoon, that undermines it completely to the point where it pretty much doesn't work. That could have been corrected by keeping Lois with Jon and Jor El through the second part. Given how fuzzy the time jumps are, there's no reason that couldn't have happened. But that foreshadowed the problems with Jon's handling in the rest of the arc.

The Earth 3 stuff is again a good idea undone by poor execution and some odd story choices. Imprisoning Jon in the volcano for what appears to be the bulk of his lost time, regardless of the "trial by fire" metaphor, kinda botched the whole thing and squandered a big opportunity. Given how Jon was terrified that he was destined to be an evil or killer version of himself, showing him navigating a world that is the literal embodiment of his greatest fears would have been a lot more impactful than having him sit in a volcano for years and essentially tune out a whining version of his dad. Again, I get what he was going for, but execution is both rushed and too much at the same time. You didn't need to have him imprisoned for years and could have had a much greater showcase for the same themes had it been stretched out over his time on Earth 3. That's what Castaway and Green Arrow, etc. really contrast with here. Jon's time is spent sitting alone for long stretches and getting lectured by his alt-dad. I get it's a mental trial, but as it's shown he really wasn't forced to question his morals or the lessons he was taught. Or at least we aren't shown it. Oliver has to learn to fend for himself and shed his entitled worldview. Depending on the version, he helps others in that context. It changes him at his core and he's faced with really significant trials. In contrast, Jon's trial is almost entirely mental as shown and even then the Ultraman parts are basically his realizing that this alt-version of his dad is a pathetic, blubbering bully. It's not that big of a stretch to ignore a person and he wasn't actively challenged by Ultraman. I think you would have gotten far more out of Ultraman taking Jon on as his "son" and putting him in situations on Earth 3 that would have forced him to make an active choice not to succumb to evil instincts. Really contrast the lessons Clark and Lois instilled with Ultraman and Superwoman.

[Montressor]

That's the key, all this crap getting retconned. I dropped the book almost immediately so I have no idea what's going on but I'm assuming a sort of 'back door' has been left regarding the unnecessary aging of Jon--when Jor El is returned to his proper place and role in the timeline and this Oz stuff is undone, he will have never taken Jon away to begin with. I've no idea if this could even somehow work as I've not been reading the book.

[Miles To Go]

I too also think this older Jon thing is just a temporary Bendis gimmick. DC have no problem promoting younger Jon in other books like DCeased and his cameos in Justice League

[DragonPiece]

I too also think this older Jon thing is just a temporary Bendis gimmick. DC have no problem promoting younger Jon in other books like DCeased and his cameos in Justice League

One is a out continuity cameo and the other is a flashback, neither is a indication of Jon's future. We know this will at last going into 2020, so if you consider that temporary sure..

[RickWJ324]

Hated it.

Completely unnecessary.

Another mistake that compounded an earlier mistake (aging up Jon in the first place).

So young Jon spent YEARS in prison being tortured by a guy who looked exactly like his loving father, over and over again, and I'm supposed to be OK with this type of storytelling?

Nope.

This is what pushed me off the Bendis bandwagon. The "reorganization" of Lois & Clark's marriage (gee, Bendis, how many apologies DID you get after AC#1004? None? Bet you were surprised) backfired badly on him, but could be forgiven and forgotten.

But this? Hell no.

This gets retconned the moment Bendis is off the Superverse at the latest, if not earlier.

Everything you said....I 100% agree!!

[RickWJ324]

Everything you said....I 100% agree!!

Jon was a very likeable kid, well written, loved his partnering with Damien, and it was awesome seeing Jon, Clark, and Lois together. Aging him up basically killed the character for those that were fans. I know if my son (who is 6) were to go visit his grandparents for a week and come back as a 16 year old, I would be beyond angry, hurt, saddened to no end. I don't know that I could ever get over that. Jon's aging shouldn't just be a quick "ok, we lost 10 years of his life, let's move on to the next issue". It serves no purpose to now have two nearly-adult Superboys in continuity. It's a shi**y plotline and I hope it gets retconned out of existance.
As for a Superboy in a new Legion title... Conner would've been perfect for that. Send him to the future and keep Jon as our one true Superboy.

[Sacred Knight]

On the other hand, you have a whole other generation of fans of whom Conner is their one true Superboy. Maybe they don't want him shipped away either. Its not all about Jon all the time.

[The World]

To be honest, I think you're reaching to try and justify the sloppiness of the story-telling during these issues. Jon wasn't trapped on an island. He was held prisoner in a ring of fire for five years. He was abused and tortured. What was done to him was purposeful and intentional, not a crazy twist of fate. So I don't feel like your comparison works. And if that a Hatchet-esque story was Bendis's intention, then he really missed the mark.

Jon Kent isn't Brian Robeson. He's a happy go-lucky-kid who wants to do good. To give him an island like Oliver Queen or a traumatic moment to guide him forward like Bruce Wayne isn't necessary. Brian never really escapes him experience in the Canadian Wilderness. It scars him and he is never able to lead a normal life afterwards.

This comparison puts places Jon in a problematic trend for experiencing trauma or even overcoming it to equate with growing up and becoming a man. It isn't. Stories like that line up with a weird romancing of old-school masculinity. "Killing makes you man" or "enduring pain makes up a man". "Suck it up. Push through it and it will make you stronger." Things like that don't make a person stronger. Jon Kent was already strong. He was already good. He was already more of a man than most adults and the evolution of a boy into a man is so much more complicated than one traumatic experience making you one.

Aging up Jon and the way it was done doesn't work. Comparisons to survivalist fiction doesn't change that.

Aye yai yai. IDK who it was that first tried to introduce "Happy go lucky" as an element of Superman but that person is a moron. This post is sort of microcosm of what's wrong with modern Superman. He and his universe just lack any of the elements that make the original Superman so electrifying and amazing.

Superman was created in the mid to late 30's, rampant poverty, inequality, genocide, war, etc. Why in the world has modern Superman attempted at branding himself as naive or innocent when it has nothing to do with him or his franchise. The guy exposed corruption with his writing and was a ferocious combatant. He's not suppose to be innocent and anyone that's read the material of his origin knows that. Superman or at least the one that mattered was a man of perseverance and had taken his fair share of rigors through life and WAS stronger for it. He was a positive example of how the problems you encounter in life can push you into a positive direction.

This modern cat though grew up basically sheltered and was a weak alternative to characters like Batman or the Punisher which is why that angle has popularized so much over the last couple decades or so. My dead parent, my dead wife/husband/principal/goldfish/whatever, life is unfair therefore I'm pissed off all the time. Superman USED to have his fair share of tragedy but the guy pushed through and WAS stronger for it but he was never the sort of "broken' schlub that's been popularized in the last couple decades as some kind of sexy tragic figure.

If Jon and frankly his father ever want to the see the mountain top again they would do well to read into the characters own past and remember why the character was a success in the first place.

tl;dr - If you want to solve the angry tragic male figure character you want to lean into Superman's old school masculinity traits now away from them.