Poll: Do you want Jon to survive the post-Bendis era?

[The World]

I'd be fine with Jon if they'd fix Clark's personality. Make the guy more fun and multi faceted.

[Ascended]

Does he? I doubt it. Sure, you can do that. But, there would be always people that believe there shouldn't be moral authority in the first place like myself.

Nothing appeals to everyone. >shrug<

Superman has always been a moral authority figure. He has forced his viewpoint on others from the very first appearance, positioning himself above all other authorities whether they were duly elected political officials or businessmen running their own company or just people living their lives the way they wanted to.

Clark isn't some manga character interested only in self-improvement. He's out to change the world and bring it in-line with what he believes is a better way of life. His entire thing is convincing people to follow his lead. That is who Superman is and has always been; the guy who says "My way is better, give it a try and see for yourself." 99% of superheroes are the same way. If that doesn't appeal to someone then Superman simply isn't for them. Which is fine, he has never appealed to every single person and doesn't need to.

If someone wants to read about a character just "causing mischief, getting into trouble, breaking rules and exploring" that's fine, but that character isn't Clark and never has been.

[Laufeyson]

I'd be fine with Jon if they'd fix Clark's personality. Make the guy more fun and multi faceted.

To be honest, Superman is always fun, but, the problem is how they presented it. It seems that DC really doesn't want to show Superman as this fun character, but they wanted to push the Jesus allegory and savior version. I knew that the moral figure is always be his character, but I think some fun thing can be infused into it. For multi-faceted, I don't know, but it seems that DC and Johns really bend on Superman must be a goody two shoes or something, but to me, the character when written properly have this mischiveous side and harsh side. So, I hope that DC would address it.

[Ascended]

To be honest, Superman is always fun, but, the problem is how they presented it. It seems that DC really doesn't want to show Superman as this fun character, but they wanted to push the Jesus allegory and savior version. I knew that the moral figure is always be his character, but I think some fun thing can be infused into it. For multi-faceted, I don't know, but it seems that DC and Johns really bend on Superman must be a goody two shoes or something, but to me, the character when written properly have this mischiveous side and harsh side. So, I hope that DC would address it.

DC definitely ignores a lot of Clark's personality and character traits in order to push the idea of him as....I dunno, some eternally optimistic opposite of Batman. And it's annoying as sh*t. I miss the guy who ate weird minerals, would prank his friends and co-workers, and rock out to music in his apartment. At least writers are starting to remember that he has a temper, doesn't always make the right/best choice, and doesn't always think the answer to everything is some pontificating speech about nebulous ideals like "truth" and "freedom."

Really, DC has fallen into the same trap as the rest of the world; they see the *legend* of Superman, and not his *character.* And those are two very different things.

[manwhohaseverything]

Nothing appeals to everyone. >shrug<

Superman has always been a moral authority figure. He has forced his viewpoint on others from the very first appearance, positioning himself above all other authorities whether they were duly elected political officials or businessmen running their own company or just people living their lives the way they wanted to.

Clark isn't some manga character interested only in self-improvement. He's out to change the world and bring it in-line with what he believes is a better way of life. His entire thing is convincing people to follow his lead. That is who Superman is and has always been; the guy who says "My way is better, give it a try and see for yourself." 99% of superheroes are the same way. If that doesn't appeal to someone then Superman simply isn't for them. Which is fine, he has never appealed to every single person and doesn't need to.

If someone wants to read about a character just "causing mischief, getting into trouble, breaking rules and exploring" that's fine, but that character isn't Clark and never has been.

No, he wasn't. That's like saying luffy or jason todd was moral authority. He is freaking outlaw who runs around doing whatever the heck he wants. Causing mayham and anarchy. The last thing superman was is a moral authority. The thing you described isn't a moral authority.Moral authority tries control thought processes. They decide what's good, bad.. Etc and just for everyone like the church. Superman wasn't out there to create a morality structure and he wasn't out there to be an example that people should follow. He was out there to do whatever he feels is right. Others who feel otherwise can exist like many police guys in goldenage. Its not upto him. He is just expressing, very very very strongly what his opinions are. He isn't forcing his opinion on others. People can choose whomever they want as elected officials or side with business men. Doesn't mean he has to like that or respect it.for instance, people could choose wile coyote as president. As a road runner fan, superman hates it. Superman feels its an injustice . So he expresses his opinion by shoving coyote on a rocket. Ofcourse, he would be a criminal. But, he doesn't mind. As long as his conscience is clear. That's all there is to it. People can brand him with whatever label or set the dogs on him. He would just fight back is all. They are free by nature. But, he is also free. They can even bring back coyote that's their choice. But, clark would cause mayhem until coyote stops bugging the poor weak road runner.And That's that.

In the above example wile still has choices. But, naturally choices lead somewhere. And some bullying ones lead to superman kick your ass. When it comes to moral authorities. They are unquestionable. It would be like questioning morality itself. You would be declared bad for such exercise.

Goku would argue that changing the individual would change the society and which in turn would change the world. But, that's a different debate. No, 90percent heroes don't have messiah complexes. They don't appoint themselves saviors of society that people need to follow without which they would be lost(blah!). They do whatever they feel is right and they just express their opinions.Many wouldn't even know what they do matters. They aren't arrogant enough to think of themselves as paragon of virtues that need to be followed. As if swampthing or robotman think of themselves as examples for humanity to follow. They don't act out a role for appearance of virtue.Even billy wouldn't and he is generally a more good person than clark could ever be.

Well yeah! That was about jon. I am fairly certain i wouldn't get that from clark. But, jon is malleable. The character isn't just based on superman. There are other influences.Jon and damian being the fantastic four of dc would be right up my ally.

[Ascended]

No, he wasn't. That's like saying luffy or jason todd was moral authority. He is freaking outlaw who runs around doing whatever the heck he wants. Causing mayham and anarchy.

That's not true at all. Clark never ran around doing "whatever he wanted," he was pursuing *his* view of justice from the start. Mayhem sometimes followed in his wake, but only because he was upsetting and destroying flawed systems, not because he was some agent of chaos chasing whatever shiny object caught his attention.

He *was* an outlaw, yes, and in the majority of versions is still technically outside the law even today. But that has no bearing on his status as a moral authority; Robin Hood is a moral authority, as was Zorro, and all those other two-fisted dispensers of justice that had to do their jobs beyond the reach of established systems. Moral authority has nothing to do with *legal* authority. And from day one, Clark's whole deal was "treat people right, Metropolis, or expect a visit from me." Of course he's been presented as a moral authority from the start, he just wasn't always presented as a *self-righteous and pompous* moral authority.

[JAK]

He is just expressing, very very very strongly what his opinions are. He isn't forcing his opinion on others.

Going by this definition, there is almost literally no mainstream version of Superman that would fit the definition of a moral authority figure, as all of them do this.

You'd have to go to Red Son or Injustice to find one that does.

[Steven Caldwell]

If everything that Bendis has done is undone, then yes.
If they keep him as a teenager, then no. get rid of him.

[stargazer01]

Simple poll.

Do you want Jon to survive the post-Bendis era or whatever relaunch/reboot that takes place next year? And when I say survive, I mean either you want the character to continue (either as a teenager or pre-teen) or you want him erased/killed/limbo'd...whatever.

Yes. I think the son of Superman is here to stay, but write him better. Erasing him is cowardice, IMO. It would show incompetence.. I think Superman deserves his family too, but they need to do a better job writing the stories.

[objectivewatcher2013]

Not only do I want him to survive, I want DC to take this new reboot they are doing starting in January to make Jon and Conner official sons of Lois and Clark, both potential inheritors of the Superman name, but have 1 follow Clark's philosophy, the other to have a different opinion on how he wants to use his powers or maybe philosophically disagree on the situations in which his power should be used. Example - should it be used on "Superman Level threats only", or to fight "street crime". Who's methods and ideology would be the bigger influence? How about giving Supes a daughter too. The stories of teaching Jon how to use his powers were awesome, but due to changes in the "timeline" not fully explored. How about having a story where Lois is doing her thing gets into her usual scrapes that Clark let's her handle on her own, but her kids don't! The bust in and make a mess of all of her work! What if one of the boys actually looked up to their grandfather Sam Lane and wanted to be a soldier that he could mold?? The possibilities are endless as long as you have a clear vision and can articulate it to the public. Of course, you'll have your haters who won't like anything that wasn't associated with Superman from the day he was first created, but the growth of the character and his universe is long overdue. He deserves to have his numerous Robins/Spoilers/Bat Girls and even Red Hood (Lor-Zod)!!

LOL, shades of the Arrowverse show.

[manwhohaseverything]

That's not true at all. Clark never ran around doing "whatever he wanted," he was pursuing *his* view of justice from the start. Mayhem sometimes followed in his wake, but only because he was upsetting and destroying flawed systems, not because he was some agent of chaos chasing whatever shiny object caught his attention.

He *was* an outlaw, yes, and in the majority of versions is still technically outside the law even today. But that has no bearing on his status as a moral authority; Robin Hood is a moral authority, as was Zorro, and all those other two-fisted dispensers of justice that had to do their jobs beyond the reach of established systems. Moral authority has nothing to do with *legal* authority. And from day one, Clark's whole deal was "treat people right, Metropolis, or expect a visit from me." Of course he's been presented as a moral authority from the start, he just wasn't always presented as a *self-righteous and pompous* moral authority.

Yeah! Pursuing justice in tyranny requires anarchy. That's what clark provided, the antidote. Dude! Doing the right thing requires you to actually want to do the right thing. Moreover, i was being relativistic. For him, he might be pursuing justice. That's his perspective. For the world, he might just be an agent of chaos that does whatever he wants. That's how the outlaw status works.Jason is viewed as bad guy by the superheroes. But, the dude helps and protects those that are inneed of it which these heroes fail to do like for instance bizarro. He takes out guys as well which the system failed to confine or eradicate leading to the weak being oppressed and victimised .

It very much so has bearing.Nobody was looking to superman as some great moral figure for guidance as he is a criminal . An authority is meant to dictate. A moral authority dictates morality itself for society . Zorro, superman, robin hood.. Etc didn't define morality structure that classifies good and bad for people to live by. Their actions themselves can be called into question as to whether they are moral or not since they use fear tactics .Legal authority and moral authority can be interconnected. A moral authority requires implicit trust which leaves you in a vulnerable position to be taken advantage of.
Moral authority :-trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good
An outlaw would never have that.Modern superman would, he is celebrated as a hero. He would be implicitly trusted by everyone to make the call on what's good or bad. On the otherhand, jason would never have that. Old Superman, jason, zorro,robin hood, luffy.. Etc wouldn't be trusted. Therefore they aren't moral authorities. But, because they do what's right they are just moral figures in general. Moreover, they aren't looking for it either(trust, acceptance... Etc) . They have objectives or ideals. Superman's is to protect the weak. Jason just wants to protect children, handicapped and women. Robin hood wants wealth to be distributed more justly. Zorro wants to protect working class. Luffy wants freedom on the high seas. Superman wouldn't give a damn what anyone thought of him as long as he knew what he was doing is right and his conscience was clear.

Going by this definition, there is almost literally no mainstream version of Superman that would fit the definition of a moral authority figure, as all of them do this.

You'd have to go to Red Son or Injustice to find one that does.

On the contrary, he wants the trust and most of the time he does have it from people to make calls on what's good or bad. He even seeks it. Heck! His parents drill him to be this great moral authority figures.
"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you… my only son."
"You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders"
See, people that trust such a figures or institution to tell them what's good or bad are in vulnerable situations. As said, it's should be an individuals choice that dictates morality . What if superman's view on certain things is not right. Then what? For instance, bible isn't kind to atheists or lgbtq community. And superman himself doesn't value people who seek power like goku or lex for example. Sure, lex is bad. But, that doesn’t mean we throw aways the goku's. In a society modelled after superman's morality. A guy like goku would be bad. When in actuality he ain't.

Those guys are just totalitarians(space stalin red son superman) and authoritarians(space hitler injustice superman) .The first Superman was simply an anarchist. He didn't seek control. As a. Matter of fact he sought freedom from control. He wasn't a knight like in donner movies or snyder movies. He was a modern day gladiator like say spartacus. The fenrir myth is something i always connect to superman. Ofcourse, moses is a given.

[JAK]

On the contrary, he wants the trust and most of the time he does have it from people to make calls on what's good or bad. He even seeks it. Heck! His parents drill him to be this great moral authority figures.
"They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you… my only son."
"You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders"
See, people that trust such a figures or institution to tell them what's good or bad are in vulnerable situations. As said, it's should be an individuals choice that dictates morality . What if superman's view on certain things is not right. Then what? For instance, bible isn't kind to atheists or lgbtq community. And superman himself doesn't value people who seek power like goku or lex for example. Sure, lex is bad. But, that doesn’t mean we throw aways the goku's. In a society modelled after superman's morality. A guy like goku would be bad. When in actuality he ain't.

The key words here are "people that trust". Trust is given. It's not generally forced. People disagree with Superman all the time. He has a commanding presence, but that's not force, that's persuasion. It quite literally *is* an individual's choice in nearly every mainstream iteration of Superman. (and honestly, the word "nearly" is only there in case I'm missing a silver age story or something)

Clark doesn't value people who seek power for it's own sake, but he also doesn't just lock those people away, either. He makes his point very strongly when they step out of line and do something criminal, but that's as far as that goes. Clark doesn't throw away the Lex's unilaterally, let alone the Goku's.

Those guys are just totalitarians(space stalin red son superman) and authoritarians(space hitler injustice superman) .The first Superman was simply an anarchist. He didn't seek control. As a. Matter of fact he sought freedom from control. He wasn't a knight like in donner movies or snyder movies. He was a modern day gladiator like say spartacus. The fenrir myth is something i always connect to superman. Ofcourse, moses is a given.

He wasn't an anarchist. If he were an anarchist, he'd have gone to the jail and sprung the falsely accused man in issue #1. Instead, he woke up a public official with the power to correct the situation within the system. That kinda flies against the anarchist theory.

[manwhohaseverything]

The key words here are "people that trust". Trust is given. It's not generally forced. People disagree with Superman all the time. He has a commanding presence, but that's not force, that's persuasion. It quite literally *is* an individual's choice in nearly every mainstream iteration of Superman. (and honestly, the word "nearly" is only there in case I'm missing a silver age story or something)

Clark doesn't value people who seek power for it's own sake, but he also doesn't just lock those people away, either. He makes his point very strongly when they step out of line and do something criminal, but that's as far as that goes. Clark doesn't throw away the Lex's unilaterally, let alone the Goku's.



He wasn't an anarchist. If he were an anarchist, he'd have gone to the jail and sprung the falsely accused man in issue #1. Instead, he woke up a public official with the power to correct the situation within the system. That kinda flies against the anarchist theory.

Actually, it's not clark the problem. Very much like christ isn't much of a problem. It's dogma and inflexibility to accommodate other frameworks or world views that usually comes from the blind followers of such figures. Moreover, clark isn't making them self-reliant. He is making people dependent. Moral Dependence that more often than not generate dogmatism as mentioned before.

Sure,but a society modelled after Clark's morality could easily take it too far. That has precedence in real world. Moreover, even if they don't. They would only tolerate goku's or for that matter lex's of this world. They would only seldom actually accept such figures. A tolerant society will not be able to actually understand another view like goku's. Only an accepting society can understand it. The society would still be a bit rigid in value system and lose out on many great things outside their purview.

That depends on praxis of the individual . What was Clark's objective? To ensure the person is proven innocent and can live a happy life in society. For that, he needs the judge's approval so he takes it. Otherwise, he wouldn't have bothered. he did just that as you said in many later issues. He even rescued lois from execution. He took hitler and stalin to summit because that's what needed for accomplishing the objective

As you can see he didn't exactly go through the proper channel here. Its not needed here. Billy batson on the other hand did always go through proper channels and then when it was exhausted he would have donned the cape.

[JAK]

Actually, it's not clark the problem. Very much like christ isn't much of a problem. It's dogma and inflexibility to accommodate other frameworks or world views that usually comes from the blind followers of such figures. Moreover, clark isn't making them self-reliant. He is making people dependent. Moral Dependence that more often than not generate dogmatism as mentioned before.

Sure,but a society modelled after Clark's morality could easily take it too far. That has precedence in real world. Moreover, even if they don't. They would only tolerate goku's or for that matter lex's of this world. They would only seldom actually accept such figures. A tolerant society will not be able to actually understand another view like goku's. Only an accepting society can understand it. The society would still be a bit rigid in value system and lose out on many great things outside their purview.

"Could easily" is doing a lot of super-heroic-level heavy lifting in the sentence, here. Clark doesn't have any real dogma other than justice. And talking about not making people self-reliant is right out of Lex Luthor's manual. But it's not true in the slightest - Superman does help with normal things at times, but he's not everywhere. How are they "morally dependent" on him?

And the thing about "not understanding another view like Goku's?" The difference in Goku's view doesn't mean anything to Superman unless the view leads to actions that endanger people. Plenty of people in Metropolis don't share Superman's worldview, and they're not getting carted off to the super-gulag, publicly shamed, or anything else.

That depends on praxis of the individual . What was Clark's objective? To ensure the person is proven innocent and can live a happy life in society. For that, he needs the judge's approval so he takes it. Otherwise, he wouldn't have bothered. he did just that as you said in many later issues. He even rescued lois from execution. He took hitler and stalin to summit because that's what needed for accomplishing the objective
As you can see he didn't exactly go through the proper channel here. Its not needed here. Billy batson on the other hand did always go through proper channels and then when it was exhausted he would have donned the cape.

In Action #1, he could just as easily have broken the man out and proven his innocence after the fact if/when he felt like it. But he didn't, even though he might not be able to wake/reach the governor in time to save the man. He has always skated a line between working inside the law and outside of it. That's not anarchy - anarchists care absolutely nothing for laws or anything else, and that has never been Superman. He's neutral good (then, now he's closer to the lawful side but still neutral good imo), not chaotic good.

[manwhohaseverything]

"Could easily" is doing a lot of super-heroic-level heavy lifting in the sentence, here. Clark doesn't have any real dogma other than justice. And talking about not making people self-reliant is right out of Lex Luthor's manual. But it's not true in the slightest - Superman does help with normal things at times, but he's not everywhere. How are they "morally dependent" on him?

And the thing about "not understanding another view like Goku's?" The difference in Goku's view doesn't mean anything to Superman unless the view leads to actions that endanger people. Plenty of people in Metropolis don't share Superman's worldview, and they're not getting carted off to the super-gulag, publicly shamed, or anything else.



In Action #1, he could just as easily have broken the man out and proven his innocence after the fact if/when he felt like it. But he didn't, even though he might not be able to wake/reach the governor in time to save the man. He has always skated a line between working inside the law and outside of it. That's not anarchy - anarchists care absolutely nothing for laws or anything else, and that has never been Superman. He's neutral good (then, now he's closer to the lawful side but still neutral good imo), not chaotic good.

No, its not. Superman is supposed to be the messianic figure that creates the moral structures that creates a utopia(heaven aka legion future).right?ofcourse, he has dogma.he is only human.Everyone has thought patterns. When taken to the extreme it becomes dogmatic. Everyone has such tendencies .Modern superman cannot handle someone killing so much so that he couldn’t even be friends with hitman tommy and he was being a jackass towards wonderwoman . I am fairly he would be on the other side of Jason's actions. He cannot handle stealing, i am fairly certain modern superman would be against robin hood or green arrow. Justice is a tricky thing. So much so a series based on piracy is always talking about justice. So? Lex is right. Goku would definitely agree with him. Fairly certain batman would as well.That's always been why lex is interesting. He makes a valid point. Only because he wants what superman has. So that's kinda bad. Goku wouldn't want to be superman or want what he has. So he would actually be morally right opposite for superman. Just because lex says it doesn't mean it's wrong. People need to stand on their own two feet. What superman does is "follow my example".i fail to see that as healthy. Questioning everything is what humanity does.

Becoming an authoritarian leader is hardly the danger. Its the other end i am talking about. Superman creating moral structures that are rigid. Its not easy being contrarian, believe me.Superman creating a value system with heresy and blashempy as concepts is my problem.


As said, superman was more than in action comics #1. Moreover, just because superman obeyed a law in one instance(and broke it by trespassing and assaulting) doesn't mean he wasn't an anarchist, as such doesn't mean he the thought the world of rules. Especially when The weak were persecuted. His objective wasn't to obey the law.That just happened by coincidence in that instance and more importantly that was needed to protect the weak at that time . Superman is a strongman from space fighting for the weak. He has an objective and theorey. Anarchists value action more than theory. They have objectives and try to implement their theory in practice.It's not just blind "break the rules!! Yeah! My man!" . I view the superman concept itself as praxis by the real clark kent(not glasses persona) .There are many types of anarchists. But, they have one thing in common.

"power should wherever possible be uprooted and eliminated".

Anarchists exists to resist power and power based violence (direct or structural). Superman takes power out of the equation. He makes every kind of power structures irrelevant. He was a gladiator for the little guy as he was one of them.Bare in mind, if i was the only one who thought superman was an anarchist. I might have considered i might be wrong. Still am not discounting that happening . Regardless, you can view him as whatever. It's only a label. It doesn't mean much. What means much to me is this. Superman to be written with this basic principle.

"those who break the rules are scum, but those who abandon their friends, their ideals and principles are worse than scum"
Superman would break rules if need be to help the weak and carry out real justice. Moreover, i don't think this guy is neutral good. The guy had a body count as well. They passed an editorial edict to not allow that. So, superman never kills.



You know i felt the same sentiment.i was flabbergasted that this was superman as well. But on the reverse.the books actually made me feel like what? what the heck! Is this thing??? There is a dramatic shift in characterisation especially when comicscode came to be. Especially, when i got to read bill finger origin. I was like what is happening here? Obey the law? help the police???? What the hell is happening?Clark is being asked by his good father pa kent to be a vigilante/criminal??? Moreover,he is asking him to obey the law and fight crime assisting the police? I was like, this doesn't make a knick of sense. It instantly turned me off. It was only when i got a different superman that was an alien asking some wierd questions about generally everything that it made me actually find a reprieve.