The Kents - Dead or Alive?

[SiegePerilous02]

Both alive. I got back into Superman back in 1992 Death of Superman storyline. The Kents were always the thing kept Superman "Clark", kept him grounded. The qualities that make him Superman.

The qualities that make him Superman are internal, not external. He doesn't need them to physically be around to keep him grounded, they did an excellent job raising him and now he's a man who can take care of himself and any challenges life throws at him. THAT's Superman, and needing parents to keep him grounded is not a quality he should have IMO. It makes him seem like a weak willed tyrant in the making, not the first among superheroes.

That goes for Lois too, though she's a little more complicated. She's incredibly important to him for a multitude of reasons, but he's a fully formed person without her ,she doesn't need to ground him. Nor would she want to be needed for such a thing.

[Jon Clark]

Both alive. I got back into Superman back in 1992 Death of Superman storyline. The Kents were always the thing kept Superman "Clark", kept him grounded. The qualities that make him Superman.

It's stuff like this that makes me see a need for the Kents to both be gone. Too many people can't seem to have living Kents without making them essential to who Superman is in the present. Clark visiting his parents- fine. Superman under extreme duress turning to them for support- OK. Superman being shown as needing the Kents to restrain him from becoming too remote, going too far, or to deal with everyday issues- NO!. And past experience from both writers and fans shows that living Kents (or Els) tend to lead to the last scenario.

[friendly-fire-press]

They're good characters. And I like stories (set in Clark's youth) featuring them. But I think there needs to be a certain point in the story, during the first year or two after he becomes Superman, where they both die.

[daBronzeBomma]

Why does Alfred Pennyworth get to be the only father figure of a major DC super-hero who gets automatic "unkillable" status?

If Alfred, who has become Bruce's legal adoptive father who knew him from birth, gets to live, then I see no reason why the Kents have to die.

They just need to be written better and more distinctly from each other.

If they die / stay dead, then Alfred has to die too.

[SiegePerilous02]

Why does Alfred Pennyworth get to be the only father figure of a major DC super-hero who gets automatic "unkillable" status?

If Alfred, who has become Bruce's legal adoptive father who knew him from birth, gets to live, then I see no reason why the Kents have to die.

They just need to be written better and more distinctly from each other.

If they die / stay dead, then Alfred has to die too.

Because Alfred's been playing a more active role in Bruce's adult superhero life since almost the beginning, whereas the Kents have not.

Also, Alfred wasn't originally a father figure. That's a post-COIE retcon. Originally Bruce didn't meet him until AFTER he took Dick as his ward. So he's more of a close friend of an older age, like another Gordon or Perry White who is in on the secret, rather than a father figure. Which I honestly prefer. I don't think Bruce needs another father figure, and he's somehow ended up less well adjusted with Alfred in his life in the modern versions. Pre-Crisis Bruce was way more stable and likable and he didn't have Alfred around since he was a kid. Pennyworth kind of dropped the ball on this one lol.

[Zero Hunter]

I think another factor is that most people don't lose both their parents by the time they are in their 30's these days like they might have back in the old days. It is just much more common to have parents alive than it might have been 70 or 80 years ago. I mean I am 48 and most of my friends maybe have lost one parent at most with alot of them still having both alive and kicking. Even those of us that have lost a parent they didn't pass until we were in are very late 30's or even mid 40's. So saying both his parents died by the time Clark was barely 30 just doesn't ring true with most people unless they died in an accident or something.

[Jon Clark]

Why does Alfred Pennyworth get to be the only father figure of a major DC super-hero who gets automatic "unkillable" status?

If Alfred, who has become Bruce's legal adoptive father who knew him from birth, gets to live, then I see no reason why the Kents have to die.

They just need to be written better and more distinctly from each other.

If they die / stay dead, then Alfred has to die too.

I have no problem with a dead Alfred. In fact if the choice is between the role he had on Gotham and a dead/non-existent Alfred, I'll gladly pull the lever myself.

I'd rather take the potential misuse of the Kents off the table. The potential for one good use (Funeral for a Friend) is vastly outweighed by actual uses (Jonathan's "Alzheimers", the almost weekly overuse on Lois & Clark, Martha in Superman Returns, the Kents' role in freeing Superman from the Eradicator's influence). And seeing what is being done to poor Jor-El by Bendis makes me glad he doesn't have access to the Kents.

[Kuwagaton]

Surprised to see KryptonMan called a bad example. Just thought about it here: if a superhero isn't saved by regular people they inspire when the chips are down, are they really a superhero? As for why the Kents there, I suppose the time just felt right for a Man of Steel #6 callback.

And since Alfred came up, that dynamic bugs me even when the characters are written well. It's like his dad, only he gets angry and ignores his advice, then tells him to do all sorts of things for him like lie or go make sandwiches. It's the wrong kind of parental wish fulfillment to me.

[Jon Clark]

Surprised to see KryptonMan called a bad example. Just thought about it here: if a superhero isn't saved by regular people they inspire when the chips are down, are they really a superhero?

I've never been a fan of stories where the "hero" requires saving. I'm not talking about a JLA tale where Batman or the Atom manages to defeat the main threat after Superman or GL is down. In those stories the heroes are a team and a win for one is a win for all. But if I pick up an issue of Batman, I expect Batman to be the main driving force in defeating the villain. Not Alfred clubbing the bad guy with a walking stick while an injured Batman watches. And when Superman is under the influence of Dominus, the Eradicator, or Eclipso in an issue of Action or Superman I expect him to free himself without assistance from that influence. I don't want his victory to rest on Lois, Martha, Jonathan, or even Batman bringing him to his senses first.

As for why the Kents there, I suppose the time just felt right for a Man of Steel #6 callback.

In my head cannon MOS #6 has Clark ending the message himself and Jonathan's attempt to intervene with the shovel wouldn't have ended well for Pa Kent.

[Ascended]

My personal preference is for them both to be dead of natural causes Clark couldn't do anything about (no car accident or god-like manipulations or natural disasters). I have never seen an argument for them being alive that adds as much to Clark's story as them being dead (which sounds odd, but.....narratives!). Everything they contribute to the story alive can be achieved with flashbacks or using other characters for the same purpose.

However, I can compromise and accept one of them still being alive (Martha being my choice between the two). And if we're looking at the best direction for the titles and not just my own personal opinion, that seems like the best way to (at least somewhat) appease both groups of fans.

[stargazer01]

I really like Pa dying when Clark is still somewhat young or early in his Superman career. It worked great in Superman the Movie because it adds some dramatic weight to his story, imo. It's something he can't fix.

I didn't like how Man of Steel handled it, though coz felt plain wrong for Clark to not try to stop it. Let Ma live longer until Jon is born. She can die of old age and always remind Clark of Pa and his love.

[mikelmcknight72]

I voted for both to be alive. Here's why:

1. There are more story options with them alive than there are with them dead, especially with crazy Jor-El, Jon, and Jon's best friend Damien around.
2. Losing his entire race and birth parents is quite enough tragedy. Even the most well-adjusted person would, in his shoes, have some sorrow about the loss and what might have been. Given who Superman is and what he represents, he doesn't need the extra angst anyway.
3. The "I can't fix everything" lesson that some cite can be easily learned in any number of ways that doesn't result in the death of either or both of the Kents.
4. We already have Batman for someone who has no living parents (at least from this Earth), so it'd hardly be unique to Clark.
5. I greatly enjoyed the stories with the Kents post-Crisis.

My first listed reason would be the most important. Crazy Jor-El interacting with them could be interesting. I'd love to see a story in which Jon & Damien go spend a few weeks at the Kent farm. Damien on a farm would be quite entertaining. There are a lot of great post-Crisis/pre-FP stories that simply can't happen with them dead.

[Sacred Knight]

The Kents being dead was never a source of angst with Superman. It wasn't like Bruce, where they were gunned down in front of him and its a constant source of darkness and motivation. They got ill. It was life. Navigating the sadness and grief was obviously something he had to do but he comes out the other side. Them being gone and angst are not mutually exclusive, though that is a common misapprehension because later characters did use it as a source of angst, like with Batman or Spider-Man.

He certainly can learn via other ways that he can't use his powers to fix anything, sure. But nothing as powerful a replacement for that lesson, I'd argue.

[stargazer01]

The Kents being dead was never a source of angst with Superman.

Things change.The mythos evolve. This one is not a deal breaker to me. It's not detrimental to the character's growth, IMO, and I don't see it as a big source of angst but as a realization that Clark can't fix everything even with his immense powers. He doesn't become Superman because Pa dies. It's just a hard life lesson that hurts more when you lose your own parent than someone random or not as close. Like I said, Superman the Movie did it very well, IMO.

[Kuwagaton]

For all the suggestions I see about compromising with Ma, it doesn’t seem listed that there is a character attribute that validates her staying power. Thus far it almost all seems to be about the novelty of having a mom as the surviving parent for a change. Maybe it prevents story distractions, except they typically just occupied the same pages anyway. Keeping them in flashbacks... I think them showing up for an appearance every six months feels less tedious than a flashback every ten. With flashbacks you have finite story relevance, where live characters react to what's going on.

They're at ground level, the regular people that sometimes Perry, Lois, and Jimmy can't be. There are other regular cast members, but they came earlier so they sort of have right of way. I look to just about any big event that tales Superman off the table. There's an additional resonance because they're actually family. I've never seen a creator go as deep into a scene as Weezy did for the bit on Funeral for a Friend.

I've never been a fan of stories where the "hero" requires saving. I'm not talking about a JLA tale where Batman or the Atom manages to defeat the main threat after Superman or GL is down. In those stories the heroes are a team and a win for one is a win for all. But if I pick up an issue of Batman, I expect Batman to be the main driving force in defeating the villain. Not Alfred clubbing the bad guy with a walking stick while an injured Batman watches. And when Superman is under the influence of Dominus, the Eradicator, or Eclipso in an issue of Action or Superman I expect him to free himself without assistance from that influence. I don't want his victory to rest on Lois, Martha, Jonathan, or even Batman bringing him to his senses first.



In my head cannon MOS #6 has Clark ending the message himself and Jonathan's attempt to intervene with the shovel wouldn't have ended well for Pa Kent.

I think the idea is so persistent because most superhero stories in some way are about no man being an island. But I can imagine that the stories where regular people hold out for just that one second longer (Like Morrison's zero issue or the Meltzer story from #1000) are more captivating than literally helping the hero.

Oh and Pa's shovel is a hilariously awesome recurring tool. DBZ has farmer with a shotgun, Superman has Pa with shovel.