Free will(b) vs Determinism(s):Does superman stories value Determinism more?

[manwhohaseverything]

In my eyes Batman has gone through a similar Post-Crisis realism fueled degradation especially towards the end of the 90's but at least his life gets to look fun. Post-Crisis Superman just seems so hopelessly dull half the time. I can't imagine the thought process that led to tossing away Superboy so that Superman could play football and be prom king which are so uninteresting and dull that they've long since become at best hazy aspects of his lose and hard to pin down backstory. How do you look at the most expansive and unique backstory in the history of comics written in tandem with his modern day life and throw it in the trash so you can say that he played football? Who does that? They try so hard to present Clark Kent as "real" to convince of the humanity he supposedly didn't have Pre-Crisis and for what? To show everyone that Clark Kent isn't a coward? But we already knew he wasn't a coward because Superman exist and we've seen him carry on as Superman even without his powers. The duality of Superman/Clark Kent personalities was what made the damn secret i.d shtick entertaining was the persona's being so different. What's even the god damn point in watching someone with Superman's powers "be the man" 24/7. Their attempt to make Clark Kent "real" defeats the point of the Clark Kent/ Superman dynamic which was literally present in the first issue of Action Comics.

Actually,the football thing is from hugo danner and goldenage superman the gladiator.Byrne was trying to go furthur pulp aspects.But,he didn't add any action.So it just felt sloppy.Moreover,these guys weren't that powerful starting out and were bullying bullies or grappling with whether they should be allowed to live as supermen or do they always have to hide who they are.

[bat39]

Inept and constantly humiliated human being/ former football player with bravado aren't the only options. Clark Kent can be humble and secure and not have to be looked down upon, just underestimated.

Agreed. I don't mind the football thing, or the idea that Clark might have dabbled in sports at some point during his high school years (preferably before his powers developed too much). But I somehow just don't see Clark Kent as being a 'football star' during his formative years...it just doesn't jibe with my perception of the character. Actually I prefer the idea of Clark working for the school newspaper, or doing a summer job for the local Smallville paper - sparking off his early interest in journalism.

I like the idea of Clark Kent being 'mild-mannered' but not bumbling or a weakling. He can be a well-respected veteran reporter, probably the Daily Planet's second-most successful reporter after Lois Lane. I like the idea of him enjoying professional success as Clark. My conception of Clark Kent is that he's who Jonathan and Martha Kent's son would have grown up to become anyway had he not been an alien with superpowers.

That's why the Post-Crisis Clark, the TAS Clark, and hell, even the DCEU Clark in BvS are among my favorite takes on the character.

[manwhohaseverything]

Agreed. I don't mind the football thing, or the idea that Clark might have dabbled in sports at some point during his high school years (preferably before his powers developed too much). But I somehow just don't see Clark Kent as being a 'football star' during his formative years...

He wasn't a foot ball star in the older stories.That's just hugo danner.Even danner quits and joins the circus as a strongman.Byrne was really into hugo danner's origin.Clark on the other hand was impersonating someone and undercover.He was on a case.There were some jackass football players trying to bully him(the guy clark was impersonating) and he throws him into wall

[Jon Clark]

On the football thing. My problem with it is the imbalance of the challenge.

Hugo Danner at the end of his football career in the novel had reached a point where the game just wasn't fun anymore. To quote the 1978 Superman movie- "Yeah!... I mean, every time I get the ball, I can make a touchdown. Every time". Hugo realized just before his final game that he simply wasn't challenged by anyone on the field. He asked to be left on the bench for most of that game to let his teammates get some glory of their own, but then realized that his team had become dependent on him to function. They had no skill at defending because Hugo always make the play even without any coverage. They had no other players who were used to playing under pressure because either Hugo was carrying out the play or could cover any of them if they got the ball. When he finally came back into the game he then got resentment because the others now knew that Hugo, and Hugo alone, was the only player on the team that mattered. He simply reached a point where whatever he did the game just couldn't be fun for him.

I can see a young Clark Kent coming to that same realization very early. If he plays up to his full ability then he's at the very least a junior varsity level player surrounded by kindergarteners on both teams. He isn't challenged and they are outclassed at every turn. He single handedly dominates the game regardless of what anyone on his team or the opposing team does.

If he tries to hold back to keep the game interesting (for him and the others) then you get situations where Clark is either missing a play Pete Ross or Steve Lombard might not have or Clark making a play that was "just past" the level of any unenhanced human (ex. Captain America or Hourman). And in either case Clark would know that a win or a loss was only due to whether he exceeded his guess of "normal ability". He could pick any score (17-13, 100-0, 54-52 ...) and by just moderating his performance slightly create the conditions for that to be the final score.

Clark as that high school star or even a regular ol' player just feels like a hollow situation to me.

[bat39]

He wasn't a foot ball star in the older stories.That's just hugo danner.Even danner quits and joins the circus as a strongman.Byrne was really into hugo danner's origin.Clark on the other hand was impersonating someone and undercover.He was on a case.There were some jackass football players trying to bully him(the guy clark was impersonating) and he throws him into wall

Yeah, I wasn't talking about the Golden Age Superman. I was commenting on the Byrne version.

I remember the old Siegal/Shuster story you're talking about though. Action Comics # 4 I believe. Good times!!

[ironman2978]

Agreed. I don't mind the football thing, or the idea that Clark might have dabbled in sports at some point during his high school years (preferably before his powers developed too much). But I somehow just don't see Clark Kent as being a 'football star' during his formative years...it just doesn't jibe with my perception of the character. Actually I prefer the idea of Clark working for the school newspaper, or doing a summer job for the local Smallville paper - sparking off his early interest in journalism.

I like the idea of Clark Kent being 'mild-mannered' but not bumbling or a weakling. He can be a well-respected veteran reporter, probably the Daily Planet's second-most successful reporter after Lois Lane. I like the idea of him enjoying professional success as Clark. My conception of Clark Kent is that he's who Jonathan and Martha Kent's son would have grown up to become anyway had he not been an alien with superpowers.

That's why the Post-Crisis Clark, the TAS Clark, and hell, even the DCEU Clark in BvS are among my favorite takes on the character.

Yeah I think Smallville was the only time I liked Clark being a football star, but only after being introverted/nerdy and considered an outsider for so long of high school years. But I do prefer him working as a journalist and interested in writing as a kid which grew into his love of journalism. Same with a love of bad science fiction films, and finding the truth.

As for the mild mannered personality, I think I prefer a balance between the two (Morrison's take on reporter Clark Kent in his new 52 action comics run, the early golden age Clark Kent, Tom De Haven's It's Superman novel, Superman: Earth One, Peace on Earth, DCEU Clark, Waid's Clark in Birthright, etc). He can be slightly bumbling and clumsy but he is an overall confident and competent reporter and is extremely good at his job. He is quiet and unassuming so no one pays attention to Clark when he needs to be Superman but being a reporter is his passion and something he would want to do even if he wasn't Superman.

I hate whenever Clark has to claims a bad stomach aches or fear of something to change into Superman, especially when he's a reporter, his job is to rush into the action and find the story. It feels so contradictory and diminishing to Clark.

[Alpha]

At any case, watch exactly is the dream that Legion of Superheroes fulfills then? Why is it proof of his triumph as Superman?

I'd really like to know what everyone's answer is to this.

[manwhohaseverything]

I'd really like to know what everyone's answer is to this.

A world where the super is the normal.

[Alpha]

A world where the super is the normal.

In what way? And how does that connect to what he does everyday?

[manwhohaseverything]

In what way? And how does that connect to what he does everyday?

Well,superboy met physical challenges and adversity in the future.In our time,he needs to look for it actively.In future,he doesn't need to hide who he is behind glasses.He is surrounded by aliens and monsters.He can fly ,but so can everyone.He isn't burdened by or met with human expectations(when the guy is made into a god or jesus to be an example for humanity) or fears or jealousy for his greatness.He naturally fit in.Since,everyone was great he was provided a better platform to be greater than his level.
Imagine a greek story(or any of the old tales with dragons and knights) where medusa is saved or fenrir wolf didn't become a beast or warriors didn't hunt and kill these monsters.Instead these monsters where living side by side with people without having to hide or made into monster if they choose to live bravely as themselves.That's the dream.

[Alpha]

Well,superboy met physical challenges and adversity in the future.In our time,he needs to look for it actively.In future,he doesn't need to hide who he is behind glasses.He is surrounded by aliens and monsters.He can fly ,but so can everyone.He isn't burdened by human expectations(when the guy is made into a god or jesus to be an example for humanity) or fears or jealousy of his greatness.He naturally fit in.Since,everyone was great he was provided a better platform to be greater than his level.
Imagine a greek story(or any for old tales with dragons and knights) where medusa is saved or fenrir wolf didn't become a beast or warriors didn't hunt and kill these monsters.Instead these monsters where living side by side with people without having to hide or made into monster if they choose to live bravely as themselves.That's the dream.

I don't know, that seems like it puts his central conflict as "how do I make the world accept me", which is much kore X-men than Superman. I understand from you history on this forum that you think it's a huge part of his character, but do you think that's the measurr of his success? I thought you wanted a Superman that made genuine change in the world rather than just keeping the status quo and helping people accept aliens. Is his whole story just about everyone coming to accept aliens, in your opinion?

[Alpha]

I don't mean to be twisting your words, feel free to ignore my phrasing of what you said

[manwhohaseverything]

I don't know, that seems like it puts his central conflict as "how do I make the world accept me", which is much kore X-men than Superman. I understand from you history on this forum that you think it's a huge part of his character, but do you think that's the measurr of his success? I thought you wanted a Superman that made genuine change in the world rather than just keeping the status quo and helping people accept aliens. Is his whole story just about everyone coming to accept aliens, in your opinion?

A bit of a Lengthy post and my interpretation.
It concerns him.Sure.As an individual he has leanings and he pertains to identification.But,it ain't about him.X-men does it.Sure.but superman has been living with glasses and chains wrapped around himself as a gladiator allegory and breaking it before xmen where a thought.He tears off the glasses persona,white collar shirt and leaps to the sky.

Having an Accepting society with different kinds of people is the minimum he can do.If he can't even do that.Then there is no point in some gigantic scheme to build some sort of idiotic utopia which he is not gonna bring about regardless of the tall claims made by both sets of his parents. That is a Bigchange.Not just about that,it's about people accepting quality without fear or jealousy.That would also mean more help building a better tommorrow with flying cars and whatnot,which humanity alone might not have accomplished.The story is about a modern day gladiator freeing himself and others.Darkknight returns subverts that.Clark chooses slavery for exceptance.He found solace in the glasses.(So much so,people believe the glasses are real now).Clark decides to throw away his radical aspects by trying to play the moderate guy always so that he can be seen as an example figure and be likable.The middle man as they say.Clark gave upon his ideals,instead of just making a compromise or two here and there due to practicality and world.

"I thought these were your friends"
"They are.But,none of them(bruce or diana) would sacrifice their principles for a friend"
hence,bruce says "You sold us out clark" and calls him a joke for his "People will be afraid of us diana.Us acting like vigilantes".The guy doesn't even realise he was one(a vigilante and chose that to protect the weak as a strongman).Not everyone can hide behind glasses and wants to for that matter.It is also why he is struck down dead by lightning and the corpse that is left drains life from the earth.The same lightning empowers batman in the book for striking down the person who has decided to be the messianic example figure rather than fight a never ending battle for truth that frees people(the whole nietzschean shtick).which brings us back to the original point of "determinism vs free will" .Superman became clark kent with glasses and savior following what both sets of his parents told him.Superman chooses to be a savior/knight and a guy who hides behind glasses than a champion(donner aftermath) just because he wasn't willing to face hate and fear head on.While,bruce wayne is batman.Tony stark is ironman.Heck!xmen do that(face fear and hate head on).Peter chooses responsibility(spiderman) over self centeredness/pity(the whole parker luck)


Note-hugo danner dies defiant to the end.He is struck dead by lightning like in dark knight returns.But,he stays true to himself unlike clark even if humanity doesn't except people like him.It's a great critique of superman as guy who hides.Superman is always conflicted and more than not makes choices at odds with the likes of batman or green arrow or the original superman.Atleast,this is the accusations leveled against the character.People don't get superman's humility in glasses.For that matter, glasses identity as the real persona did not bring that or relatability either.despite the intent.Why? cause clark kent was a savior.Saviors/messanic example figures aren't relatable by design.These guys cling to the words of their fathers till the end.No questions asked.A champion is relatable.He would be on of us.But different.
Another thing,The only times glasses persona being real worked for me are with superman for all seasons and american alien.Clark was exceptionally relatable because they ditched the savior thing in these stories.Clark was just a dude and that was cool.

[Alpha]

One more question, Krypton's destruction has had many causes over the years, but if we look at Superman as a character and as myth, what exactly does Superman learn about the world through Krypton's destruction? And how does it affect his goals and methods right here on earth?

People still cling to the Moses story, but Moses was about him being taken away from home so that he could save his people. The grand mission that Clark chose isn't to save Krypton, it's to create a better earth. Are there specific things that Krypton did wrong that he is trying to avoid on earth?

I have my own personal take tgat would drastically change the lore, including that Krypton should be parallel the Aztec and Mayan destruction, rather than Jewish myth, and that Clark should be a recontextualization of the native south american immigrant coming to the USA. But the mainstream take on these things doesn't seem very thought out to me.

[bat39]

Another thing,The only times glasses persona being real worked for me are with superman for all seasons and american alien.Clark was exceptionally relatable because they ditched the savior thing in these stories.Clark was just a dude and that was cool.

Yeah, that's my preferred interpretation. That Clark is ultimately just an ordinary guy who decides to use his powers to help people. It's the world that calls him a superhero, or even 'Superman' for that matter and elevates him to a symbol and a God-like figure.

Later on, of course, as he embraces his Kryptonian heritage more, and as he grapples more with his legendary status, he becomes more complex and a larger-than-life figure. But to begin with, he's just "some dude"...albeit one who's heart is in the right place and who has the power to help people.

One more question, Krypton's destruction has had many causes over the years, but if we look at Superman as a character and as myth, what exactly does Superman learn about the world through Krypton's destruction? And how does it affect his goals and methods right here on earth?

People still cling to the Moses story, but Moses was about him being taken away from home so that he could save his people. The grand mission that Clark chose isn't to save Krypton, it's to create a better earth. Are there specific things that Krypton did wrong that he is trying to avoid on earth?

I have my own personal take tgat would drastically change the lore, including that Krypton should be parallel the Aztec and Mayan destruction, rather than Jewish myth, and that Clark should be a recontextualization of the native south american immigrant coming to the USA. But the mainstream take on these things doesn't seem very thought out to me.

That's an interesting thought. When was the first time Superman's mission was linked to Krypton's fate, and the notion of saving earth and preventing it from dying the way Krypton did? Or bringing earth to the level of Krypton pre-destruction?

It couldn't have been during the Golden Age, because for most of that era Superman didn't even know about Krypton. The Silver Age delved a LOT into Krypton...was it during that time?

The first clear instance I'm aware of where Krypton in any way influenced Superman's mission was the Donner movie, and there it was only about Jor-El giving him the mission to be Superman - not to specifically "save earth and prevent it from dying like Krypton", though maybe that's implicit in it?