Superman becoming the everyman.

[Kuwagaton]

Agreed. I think people have different ideas of what "Everyman" entails. To me, it means a person who is very much normal and mundane, and readers are supposed to see themselves reflected directly in the character; not allegory but (near) direct comparison. Peter Parker is as "regular guy" as it gets; he could be any of us, or live next door to us. His problems are, by and large, no different from our own, his flaws, by and large, the same as our's. I never really related to Parker since I wasn't a socially awkward nerd, but I did relate directly with Kyle Rayner.

Ugh, Peter Parker was so relatable from like 8th grade to sophomore year haha. It's crazy I don't keep up with the character because I got the first few Masterworks back then and those were the best comics ever to me. I just sort of feel like I got Superman better when I matured, of course not meaning that to sound like an insult to that other character and his fans.

Superman as an everyman to me is a common minded man with a simple to understand, reasonable but not stock response to the world around him. With modern sensibilities that keep his flaws far below a level that causes divisiveness, like being a bigot. Even though he sees all of this crazy stuff, the fantastic is still fantastic to him because if we're reading about a bored Superman, aren't we bored? Just like we're outraged with him when something tragic happens, etc.

But he's still Superman. "Super" never impressed me much as an adjective really, so I would really still say the premise is that he is the overall greatest man in the world. And for us, he's the father of the genre. He's brought so much to the table that his own influences aren't even in the rearview. No one can say he didn't inspire Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, etc. Never mind the mountain of expy characters. He's broadly influenced "every man."

But he shouldn't be seen worrying about something as basic as paying rent. Really, that's the crutch of the argument for me. Is a character the kind of person who will be seen dealing with the same problems as me, or will they deal with fantastical problems that elicit the same emotional response as my problems? The first is an Everyman, the latter is not.

Superlad once proposed the idea of a Superman comic about completely mundane things, and I have to admit I enjoy that idea. Because he's super, those things come back around to being kind of funny.

[manwhohaseverything]

If superman had land owners that are interdimensional people with his apartment bring another dimension, then yeah! that would be cool and relatable at the same. Just imagine, superman getting hounded by galactus like landowner for rent which is kind priceless space jewel or something.

[Kuwagaton]

I am speaking about the character in general treatment and thought process , not just byrne. See the problem is, when it came to long term storytelling and status quo . Writers largely treated him as an everyman. Superman is treated as this average man with average life but with powers. They don't treat him like Morrison does. You know, "it's me but superme".Like a superman with superlife with superpowers. My critic, is of forner thought process .As i said, powers for superman shouldn't be something discardable. With spiderman there are thing that stop writers from putting emphasise on certain things. like for instance, intelligence and outlook. If writers decided to tone down parkers intelligence. Then there would be questions regarding his webshooters and other gadgets he built.for superman, the sign posts are hard in postcrisis interpretation . Intelligence is just one example and it being hard is the reason i don't put entirely the blame on writers. Red sun making him totally normal average man is another such symptom of this problem and thought process.

The thing with Superman is that he couldn't really be like other people if he tried. He barely has to eat or sleep and can make a disposable fortune doing things that require very little effort. I can see feeling like some writers take those things for granted.

I don't see the vigilante as prototype. The writers of the character might have chosen to ignore it later on, unlike his counterparts in batman and spiderman. But, that is what he is. If he is not that, writer would find something else more dramatic. like say for instance, "the messiah" . "the messiah" interpretation became more frequent just as "the vigilante" waned. I don't see it as a coincidence. The first words of superman to lois is something i find intrinsic to the character. It's the fundamental philosophy of the character . "you need'nt be afraid of me. I won't harm you". That means there are things about clark that is dangerous for us to be afraid of instinctively. That's the vigilante in him. The character is trying to communicate otherwise with empathy, compassion and a deep hope for acceptance . I firmly believe, The vigilante aspects allows clark to be say and do things might offend people. Writers would see the need to conform to the need to "not offend" far less.

Batman was watered down pretty much the same though. He went from straight killing people to being a goofball.

Anyways, thanks for the reply.

It's interesting to think about applications and other perspectives of the character's personality.

[manwhohaseverything]

The thing with Superman is that he couldn't really be like other people if he tried. He barely has to eat or sleep and can make a disposable fortune doing things that require very little effort. I can see feeling like some writers take those things for granted.



Batman was watered down pretty much the same though. He went from straight killing people to being a goofball.



It's interesting to think about applications and other perspectives of the character's personality.

Yes, batman's has as well. Even then batman basically treated as a vigilante who breaks people. Batman isn't treated as figure to emulate, only to be feared and strangley sympathised. Sure, enough there is this vulnerable tragic child deep inside that people sympathises with. For superman, it's different. The good he does need to be emulated. He needs to be not just the symbol of hope.at the same time, He needs to have the intrinsic dangerous side that values ideals like truth, justice, liberty, freedom.. Etc above all else.he is guy that puts ideal before laws. That's scary, since laws are one of the structures that protects, but it does many times cause damage as well.but, here is aguy who can't be bent to its will. Violence cannot be used to secure jurisdiction over him by the state.that has pitfalls for character himself and others around him. He can make mistakes and won't be accountable . That's interesting.
People say, batman is the absolute anarchist he let's go. But, that's wrong. Batman in its worst form is a totalitarian who wants to control every aspect of his city for security. To plan every detail and contingency. For me, Superman is a far better figure for that comparison at worst. People potray the guy as dictator at worst form because of power and not taking into account the mentality of the character. Superman seeks no control. As matter of fact, i believe he relishes the thought of having no chains.The cardboard speech exits for a reason . The chain breaking exist for a reason.He is like fenrir the wolf. He cannot be tamed with strength and that makes him dangerous. Its funny, fenrir and the sun has a connection too. He is prophecied to eat the sun as well.


And superman is a dog person, go figure.

[Jim Kelly]

Peter Parker was never relatable to me. I first started reading about him and seeing him on TV (in cartoons) in the late 1960s, when I had a mop of hair and all my friends had mops of hair and the kids with short haircuts were narks. And even though he looked like a guy that didn't fit in with his generation, he had loads of beautiful women yet moaned about his sorry lovelife as if he wasn't this lucky playboy that was pulling all the birds in town. And his family life was weird--how many young guys live with an aunt who looks 103 and is a millstone around his neck? Exactly what was it that I was supposed to relate to?

[Robanker]

I mean isn't Superman also about not letting his immense power go to his head and that might shouldn't make right? Part of the reason he plays by the rules is that he wants to set the example that they need to apply to everyone.

If the public feared him and he doesn't adhere to laws we draft to protect ourselves... Isn't Lex right about him? He's just someone flexing their power and getting what they want which just happens to be for our benefit... But for how long?

Clark wants us to be better. He wants us to change. He does so via leading by example. Fearing him would just make him more of what we're used to: a white (or passing, but the public likely just considers him white) man with all the power in the universe getting away with whatever he wants because he's above the law. When was the last time Jeff Bezos inspired us? I think Clark needs to stand up when he sees injustice, but someone with his immense power and role in the world should be responsible with how he applies himself.

I think a more devil-may-care attitude works for a younger Superman, but once he's been operating a year or two he needs to wisen up. I don't think the vigilante approach full-on works for the character as a status quo. Fun for early and Elseworlds tales, though.

[manwhohaseverything]

Peter Parker was never relatable to me. I first started reading about him and seeing him on TV (in cartoons) in the late 1960s, when I had a mop of hair and all my friends had mops of hair and the kids with short haircuts were narks. And even though he looked like a guy that didn't fit in with his generation, he had loads of beautiful women yet moaned about his sorry lovelife as if he wasn't this lucky playboy that was pulling all the birds in town. And his family life was weird--how many young guys live with an aunt who looks 103 and is a millstone around his neck? Exactly what was it that I was supposed to relate to?

This isn’t a post about me wanting to make superman like spiderman. If you think that, then you are mistaken. Peter parker comparison comes only because he is touted as the "everyman" or the most relatable. All i said was writers seems to be able to keep all the sides of the characters in front and center more easily. With Superman there are less number of signposts. It's fine if you don't find peter relatable. I don't either.

[Jim Kelly]

It's fine if you don't find peter relatable. I don't either.

No worries. I wasn't taking issue with your post. I was just spouting off my thoughts about Peter Parker as everyman apropos of nothing. Sorry if it came off as if I was challenging anything you said. When I want to directly address something someone else said, I usually quote them.

[Ascended]

If superman had land owners that are interdimensional people with his apartment bring another dimension, then yeah! that would be cool and relatable at the same. Just imagine, superman getting hounded by galactus like landowner for rent which is kind priceless space jewel or something.

It would be pretty funny, but it would also be allegory. That's the big difference, in my mind. An Everyman has problems exactly like regular people; his landlord isn't a higher dimensional cosmic entity, it's just an old lady who smells like cats. Clark has problems/experiences that are sort of like our's, but usually on a scope far beyond reality, with a moral fortitude people don't usually have. Allegory.

Oh, and I'd read Superlad's "Superman doing normal stuff" book too. Because that's just ridiculous in the best ways.

[manwhohaseverything]

I mean isn't Superman also about not letting his immense power go to his head and that might shouldn't make right? Part of the reason he plays by the rules is that he wants to set the example that they need to apply to everyone.

If the public feared him and he doesn't adhere to laws we draft to protect ourselves... Isn't Lex right about him? He's just someone flexing their power and getting what they want which just happens to be for our benefit... But for how long?

Clark wants us to be better. He wants us to change. He does so via leading by example. Fearing him would just make him more of what we're used to: a white (or passing, but the public likely just considers him white) man with all the power in the universe getting away with whatever he wants because he's above the law. When was the last time Jeff Bezos inspired us? I think Clark needs to stand up when he sees injustice, but someone with his immense power and role in the world should be responsible with how he applies himself.

I think a more devil-may-care attitude works for a younger Superman, but once he's been operating a year or two he needs to wisen up. I don't think the vigilante approach full-on works for the character as a status quo. Fun for early and Elseworlds tales, though.

Look i know people want rolemodels and stuff. But, clark can't be that 100 percent. He is a vigilante. Now, what i said about him breaking laws is that. He wouldn't care about breaking a law if it mean he needs to protect someone, protecting an ideal in face of tyranny.Opressive structures wouldn't be tolerated by superman.he would absolutely tear it down. That's the character.i have said, earlier that his conflict lies in the middle. He is an agent of anarchy(vigilante) who is stuck in the middle between absolute chaos/anarchy and absolute order/tyranny . But, he fights both sides.

You see Darknight returns, injustice.. Etc don't acknowledge that history of clark. He has more chance of becoming an absolute anarchist hell bent on destroy everything than the guy that tries to control/rule everything or the guy bending his will to another man. This is ofcourse the worst case scenario. When he snaps and goes evil so to speak.

But, otherwise clark comes to realise the value of structures and chains that he doesn't want to break. He tames himself because he didn't get tricked like fenrir. Because He got loved by people especially his parents. he starts seeing everyone around as connected to him(all star). "everything is connected. Everyone"
He doesn't want to break those chains and anything that leads to breaking of those chains. Because then he will be more alone than he already feels sometimes .That doesn't mean he isn't a beast. That he isn't dangerous.

Otherwise, even though the messenger is self-serving and flawed there is some truth to lex's or sam's concern. The former is a great villain because of that. Joker is great villain. Because he hits a nerve in people.Clark does want us to better ourselves. and in that us, he includes himself. He has a long ways to go just like us. As i said, fear isn't his weapon. Fear comes easy to clark,unlike bruce who has to work on it. It's hope and trust that comes hard for clark. People don't realise that. Clark's empathy is precisely because of this. He tirelessly works on it.

To QUOTE zoro,
"You've underestimated me, snow woman. When you thought you couldn't beat me, you should have run. Of course, there are things that I don't wanna cut. But... let me ask you something. Have you ever seen a fierce beast you were sure would never bite? Because I haven't."

Clark is that beast. Characters like Zoro, luffy, clark..etc only follow rules(if they do) because they want to. Because they have morality. Not because of fear of violent repercussions from authorities.i mean, he is superman. He fears nothing, even darkseid. Zoro then proceeds to not cut that snow woman,even when he can. He let's go. Why? Because he has a moral compass, similar to his captain monkey d luffy.there by, proving himself wrong as well. There might be a fierce beast that's willing to not bite. If we look hard enough.The thought process of creators of superman is that" there might be a powerfull man who won't get corrupted and use his power, to oppress or control people weaker than him".

You are fooling yourselves if you think superman is afraid of the government or batman or anyone.he isn't. He has choice. To either be gun that kills the world Or to be superman that saves the world. He chooses the later like iron giant. Think about it. The world has nothing to offer to clark accept love, acceptance, trust.. Etc. He is humbled because he gets these things. Ofcourse, wolves are ancestors of dogs. Because wolves had that in them, as well. Innate social and altruistic nature compatable to man. Clark does as well. Not all creatures can be tamed. Some will bite you regardless of compassion you have shown to it.
Ofcourse, this thread is'nt about Clark's vigilante side aka superman . That's a part of the identity of the character. So, i talked about it.

[Adekis]

At the denouement of Morrison's Action Comics, Kal is sitting down with Krypto, bruised but grinning because despite the fact he got the everloving tar knocked out of him, everyone on Earth came together and helped him overcome the threat. He saved the world again, and for once, the world got to save him too.

It's a wonderful contrast, a balance that exists perfectly within Superman. On the one hand, he's a pretty normal man, a kid trying to make it in the big city and to do his best to give back to the community. On the other hand, he's a living legend, the Greatest Hero of them All. And these two forces exist in tandem, in unison, making him the hero we all know he can be.

But when those forces get out of alignment, when people start calling him "Clark" even when he's not wearing glasses, when he starts bowing to corrupt authority, worrying about whether or not he's well-liked, or feels more comfortable hiding his powers than using them openly to help people, then there's a major problem.

When you lose not just Clark Kent and the secret identity, but "mild-mannered Clark" specifically, or at least the broad commitment to that idea, when you lose that fundamental outlet for Kal's everyman side, you often start losing the Greatest Hero of Them All as well, because you start giving those everyman qualities to Superman, which does not tend to improve Kal/Clark as a character, from a holistic approach.

[manwhohaseverything]

At the denouement of Morrison's Action Comics, Kal is sitting down with Krypto, bruised but grinning because despite the fact he got the everloving tar knocked out of him, everyone on Earth came together and helped him overcome the threat. He saved the world again, and for once, the world got to save him too.

It's a wonderful contrast, a balance that exists perfectly within Superman. On the one hand, he's a pretty normal man, a kid trying to make it in the big city and to do his best to give back to the community. On the other hand, he's a living legend, the Greatest Hero of them All. And these two forces exist in tandem, in unison, making him the hero we all know he can be.

But when those forces get out of alignment, when people start calling him "Clark" even when he's not wearing glasses, when he starts bowing to corrupt authority, worrying about whether or not he's well-liked, or feels more comfortable hiding his powers than using them openly to help people, then there's a major problem.

When you lose not just Clark Kent and the secret identity, but "mild-mannered Clark" specifically, or at least the broad commitment to that idea, when you lose that fundamental outlet for Kal's everyman side, you often start losing the Greatest Hero of Them All as well, because you start giving those everyman qualities to Superman, which does not tend to improve Kal/Clark as a character, from a holistic approach.

Wow! Nicely put. I agree with what you said.

[Lightning Rider]

It's strange too, that this gets aimed at Clark so much when there's so many popular characters who are just as otherworldly and/or unrelatable in their own ways. Batman, despite technically being human (yeah, no) isn't relatable. Black Panther too. And on and on. Sometimes I think the idea of Superman, of someone so much better than us, makes people afraid or angry. If Superman can be a better person, then what excuse do we have?

I think you might be right. Without getting to into the weeds, I think the longstanding movement towards moral ambiguity in storytelling has made audiences hesitant to consider a figure above others in their moral judgement.

[Jim Kelly]

I sometimes think that the current generation of writers must be pretty crumby people in their real lives--unfaithful to their friends and family, involved in rotten deals, backing out of just causes--given they make out that most comic book heroes are just as bad as the villains and the villains are just as good as the heroes. They seem to subscribe to a moral relativism that forgives their lousy actions, supposedly because moral absolutes don't exist.

[stargazer01]

Wonder Woman is not relatable and I don't see people complaining about that. She pretty much can do it all and has no weaknesses, or so I hear.

Batman is very rich, handsome, intelligent, and has a plan for everything, even to defeat the whole JL is necessary.. How is that relatable? He's human but seem for Super than Superman himself..

Sometimes I think it's just jealousy some have for Clark and his powers.

The way I see Clark Kent, is that he is a Super Man. He is Super and alien, but he is also human because he was raised as one. He feels like us. I think both or 3 of his personas (Kal-El) should be honored and important. I love it when he goes to his very alien Fortress of Solitude to do all sort of things, and I also love when he goes home to his wife or mom to eat apple pie and play with his dog. I love when he tries to be a good reporter and investigator, and I also love it when he has cosmic adventures in other worlds. He can do be so much and do so much, it's why I love his stories.