Split/compartmentalise superman or amalgamate superman portrayals

[manwhohaseverything]

Voted for the amalgamation.

Now, if DC really does split their publishing lines into different continuities, like "champion of the people" Golden Age and "space jesus" Silver Age, then fine, lean into that and play up the different viewpoints and narrative possibilities. If we're going to have multiple Supermen running around and likely staring in separate titles, then you *need* to make them stand out from one another, otherwise there's no point to the whole thing in the first place.

But generally speaking? Each era brings a new facet to explore, and when mixed together correctly you end up with a fascinating, nuanced, complex and layered Superman capable of operating in any imaginable genre or story without losing sight of his character. And while DC has struggled to find the right combination of elements, I do believe there *is* a way to write Clark with all eras in mind that will satisfy (if not thrill) almost everyone.

I don't believe in reduction. I believe in addition. The different versions of Clark we've seen over the last (almost) century can serve to make a better Superman. Breaking the character down, taking things away from him....isn't that what everyone (including me) have been bitching about for the last year or two?

I don't believe we need to differentiate more than whats already historicaly there. These takes have different flavours already in my book. For me they just need to be brought to current world by someone who absolutely loves the character(that's why i added the changes. Which is just my suggestion and ideas that is strictly optional except for k-metal ) . See, my initial idea was to split action comics into three like in the old days.but, that might not work. I haven't fully taken into account market/business side of things. So, guilty is charged.

But, my problem is we don't get a nuanced character more often than not.we lose the nuances as matter of fact. Sometimes it's confusing as hell.for example, when ever someone like grant morrison writes the book. He writes a super intelligent man from farmlands of kansas. But, many writers him as simple guy from farmlands of kansan. There are things(irreconcilable differences) that can't folded in one superman.these things are not minor things either. They impact the characterisation . they will be lost.for example, if we create an amalgam superman. He will be clark kent(all encompassing identity ) most likely . You can say goodbye to the guy who remembered krypton and had main all-encompassing identity kal el. Also, you can. Either have pa be alive or dead. Not both. thats how it goes. Here, we can do both.

Consider superman to be three sets of attributes who you want to unite. Only the intersections survive. Any differences/ subtleties /nuances gets erased. We get an archetype. We get a guy who has echoes of the past. But the past itself is distorted and just an echo.

I am not taking things away from the character. I just want people to get to know different versions of the character at their best. Give them an option to have their superman.instead of ploughing through the differences and forcing an amalgamation, because i do believe they are different characters with big overlaps.maybe in time, people will try other versions of the character and truly understand them . What they were. What they represented. Intead of saying, "not my superman". Or not,maybe they will cling to their superman. But, atleast the superman the character wouldn't become a archetype With people seeing/reading whatever they want to. Atleast, these visions for the character would not be tainted.
For me differences are major nuances of these versions. They will always be thrown away. There by creating a shell.