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

[Alpha]

It totally might be, but then again, what is the point of Krypton being destroyed if it doesn't have any impact on Clark other than loneliness? Because that could still be achieved if Krypton was still alive.

I mean there are various stories about Aquaman where he was exiled as a baby and isn't alowed to come back right? And in Young Justice for example Miss Martian totally behaves like a human and tries to fit into human society despite Mars still being populated.

[Tzigone]

It totally might be, but then again, what is the point of Krypton being destroyed if it doesn't have any impact on Clark other than loneliness? Because that could still be achieved if Krypton was still alive.

I think it's pretty plainly simply a plot device to get a super-powered alien to Earth. A reason he's here instead of there. That's all it needs to be to me. I really don't like the Superman=Jesus or Superman-has-a-destiny vibes. Much fonder of him simply making a choice because what he wants to do and what he believes is right.

I really do prefer Clark not knowing of Krypton until after he's Superman, and not having deep emotional ties to, as was originally the case. He's not saving earth because he couldn't save Krypton, he's doing good in the world because he wants to - it fulfills him. He even quite often enjoys swooping in saving the day and catching bad guys - there's some fun there. And, yes, helping make the world a better place aligns with his value system. I really don't prefer the Kents raising him to be a savior or the Els instilling giving him the guide-the-human-race job. But just he has the power, and wants to do good with it. Just him.

[Alpha]

I totally agree with that interpretation, although I think Clark would question a lot more how much impact he should have on the world and that would be something he would be dealing with a lot at least for his first 10 years. But more from the perspective of, I have these powers and I know I should do something with them , and I WANT to do something with them. Other people aren't indestructible and don't have super strengh or flight, but how do I do this without messing up the world even more? Should I let them vote on what I can do? Or should I just try to bring in peace while also prioritising what I think is right? I just found out that there's this thing called kryptonite and it can hurt me. I don't want them to be able to hurt me and I think I deserve to be safe so that I can help others which is all I wanna do. Should I destroy all pieces of kryptonite? Or should I keep them in a vault in the fortress of solitude so that maybe later on I can give it to someone I trust in. Or do normal people have the right to hold up this kryptonite thing? Should I give the government this as a counter measure to me?

None of this has anything to do with Krypton's destruction, but in a meta sense I think it has to have some purpose. Krypton died for a reason, and Clark came to earth for a reason. This reason is one that he himself will choose, but it's something that the writer should be aware of, because otherwise Krypton could as well just exist and Clark can just be someone that was exiled as a child as punishment for Jor-el's scientifical experiment and eventually both Jor el and Lara died. This isn't something I want, but it's also not something I can't argue against because it does just as much as Krypton dying.

At the beginning of this thread someone argued that Batman faced a tragedy and chose his own purpose whereas Clark also experienced a tragedy (even if he doesn't remember it) and he didn't choose his purpose. In my take on him this would not be true. Clark would definitely choose his own mission, and that's the main thing he has to face in his early years, deciding what he thinks he should do with his powers. But if the Wayne's death purpose was to show this rich kid that life in Gotham is cruel and unfair and he then chose to find his purpose in that, then krypton's destruction also should have the same type of meta purpose which then feeds into Clark choosing his fate.

[bat39]

I totally agree with that interpretation, although I think Clark would question a lot more how much impact he should have on the world and that would be something he would be dealing with a lot at least for his first 10 years. But more from the perspective of, I have these powers and I know I should do something with them , and I WANT to do something with them. Other people aren't indestructible and don't have super strengh or flight, but how do I do this without messing up the world even more? Should I let them vote on what I can do? Or should I just try to bring in peace while also prioritising what I think is right? I just found out that there's this thing called kryptonite and it can hurt me. I don't want them to be able to hurt me and I think I deserve to be safe so that I can help others which is all I wanna do. Should I destroy all pieces of kryptonite? Or should I keep them in a vault in the fortress of solitude so that maybe later on I can give it to someone I trust in. Or do normal people have the right to hold up this kryptonite thing? Should I give the government this as a counter measure to me?

None of this has anything to do with Krypton's destruction, but in a meta sense I think it has to have some purpose. Krypton died for a reason, and Clark came to earth for a reason. This reason is one that he himself will choose, but it's something that the writer should be aware of, because otherwise Krypton could as well just exist and Clark can just be someone that was exiled as a child as punishment for Jor-el's scientifical experiment and eventually both Jor el and Lara died. This isn't something I want, but it's also not something I can't argue against because it does just as much as Krypton dying.

At the beginning of this thread someone argued that Batman faced a tragedy and chose his own purpose whereas Clark also experienced a tragedy (even if he doesn't remember it) and he didn't choose his purpose. In my take on him this would not be true. Clark would definitely choose his own mission, and that's the main thing he has to face in his early years, deciding what he thinks he should do with his powers. But if the Wayne's death purpose was to show this rich kid that life in Gotham is cruel and unfair and he then chose to find his purpose in that, then krypton's destruction also should have the same type of meta purpose which then feeds into Clark choosing his fate.

I get where you're coming from. But the comparision of Krypton's destruction and Wayne murders doesn't hold up beyond a point because the Wayne murders definitively motivate Bruce's crusade as Batman, while Krypton's destruction usually doesn't have anything to do directly with Clark's mission as Superman. That's just the way those stories were originally told.

Krypton was originally just a plot device by Siegal and Shuster to explain Superman's powers. For the first decade or so, it was pretty irrelevant outside of the origin story. Then Superman learnt about Krypton, and kryptonite was introduced, and the first other survivors were introduced...and soon Krypton became a major part of the mythos ripe for exploration. But even so I don't think it was tied to Clark's motivation to be Superman directly.

Of course, even if it wasn't the original intention, I think you can definitely tie Krypton's destruction into Superman's psyche and his mission over time - especially as he learns more about it and starts to embrace the 'Kal-El' identity more. As numerous writers have done. But to me Krypton's destruction isn't the same thing as the Wayne murders in terms of motivating the hero to do good. In fact...its arguably more in line with Bruce Wayne's wealth and his training - a plot point to explain why the hero can do the things he can do...at least to begin with

[Alpha]

But we're not talking about why they were introduced, we're talking about why they are still here. It's destruction isn't necessary for Clark to come to earth. If it was destructed then it should have some meaning for the grand message of Superman, one even he isn't aware of. What is it?

[Jon Clark]

I totally agree with that interpretation, although I think Clark would question a lot more how much impact he should have on the world and that would be something he would be dealing with a lot at least for his first 10 years. But more from the perspective of, I have these powers and I know I should do something with them , and I WANT to do something with them. Other people aren't indestructible and don't have super strengh or flight, but how do I do this without messing up the world even more? Should I let them vote on what I can do? Or should I just try to bring in peace while also prioritising what I think is right? I just found out that there's this thing called kryptonite and it can hurt me. I don't want them to be able to hurt me and I think I deserve to be safe so that I can help others which is all I wanna do. Should I destroy all pieces of kryptonite? Or should I keep them in a vault in the fortress of solitude so that maybe later on I can give it to someone I trust in. Or do normal people have the right to hold up this kryptonite thing? Should I give the government this as a counter measure to me?

None of this has anything to do with Krypton's destruction, but in a meta sense I think it has to have some purpose. Krypton died for a reason, and Clark came to earth for a reason. This reason is one that he himself will choose, but it's something that the writer should be aware of, because otherwise Krypton could as well just exist and Clark can just be someone that was exiled as a child as punishment for Jor-el's scientifical experiment and eventually both Jor el and Lara died. This isn't something I want, but it's also not something I can't argue against because it does just as much as Krypton dying.

At the beginning of this thread someone argued that Batman faced a tragedy and chose his own purpose whereas Clark also experienced a tragedy (even if he doesn't remember it) and he didn't choose his purpose. In my take on him this would not be true. Clark would definitely choose his own mission, and that's the main thing he has to face in his early years, deciding what he thinks he should do with his powers. But if the Wayne's death purpose was to show this rich kid that life in Gotham is cruel and unfair and he then chose to find his purpose in that, then krypton's destruction also should have the same type of meta purpose which then feeds into Clark choosing his fate.

To me, Krypton was only intended as a McGuffin. You needed a place for this superhuman person to come from and Siegel and Shuster went with another planet after considering the future. It wasn't really meant to have any impact of the character once he left. Clark/Superman was an outsider due to his position, not his origin. He was Hugo Danner whose abilities made him outside humanity, not Valentine Michael Smith whose cultural heritage set him apart from humanity. As much as i loved Silver-Age Krypton I think something went horribly wrong when Superman began to see himself as a Kryptonian.

In fact thinking about it the seeds for Superman=Jesus might stem from that change.

Superman originally had to form his identity on his own. He had no contemporaries- even if we use the Earth 2 Golden Age he didn't meet other metahumans until adulthood. So just what it was to be a "Kryptonian on Earth" was up to Clark Kent to define. He wasn't heir to any established tradition that Superman was simply the latest member of.

But in the Silver Age he was aware from almost birth that he was part of something otherworldly. He was Kal-El and not just Pete Ross or Jonathan Kent with added abilities. He was the Christian Jesus in that like the infant who was "God", Superbaby knew who he was. At age 12 he, like Jesus, could leave his parents and debate with the most learned men as an equal (Superboy dealing with governments and scientists). The Bronze Age even had those "Tales of Krypton" where Rao was like the Judea-Christian "God" and the planet descended from Kryp and Ton (Adam and Eve). So, of course, Superman was now heir to Krypton- the pseudo Old Testament Israel.

[manwhohaseverything]

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.

Mainstream is him being jesus/authority figure who saves humanity.Moses superman is dead in mainstream stories.Moses's story is about state vs indiviual.Where an individual is or becomes more powerful than the king(state which is corrupted and oppressive).Moses thing relevant cause his people are still alive.Jewish people created superman with their experiences ingrained in the character.Otherwise,superman is just zorro with powers of hugo danner(captain marvel now).people of kandor,kara,krypto,even zod's side..etc are still here.Not to mention,all the meta humans and aliens(there are a lot of martians).Krypton was an isolationist society that built/had a caste system or clan system that was rigid based on genetic engineering(byrne ) or otherwise natural order(donner).It was governed by an elite oligarchy including the els.Sure,these guys were the science council.But,an oligarchy isn't great.Worse they were not able to see the problems with the way they treated their own planet.They did not value their potential other than technological advancements,never knew it or tapped into it.Clark was inherently trying to beat the machines from day one either smashing cars of molesters or racing trains or literally helping an aeroplane to fly trying to match their experties with his own skill.He wanted a level playing field,Where man isn't dependent on just one thing.Also,goldenage superman acted out being an alien just like tarzan acted out being a human.It's as simple as that.

No,that's another donnersm.He isn't trying to save anything(krypton or earth).He wasn't trying to be an example or framework figure.He is just doing what he thinks is right.Hopefully,it leads to a better society.Even if it doesn't,he can only do what he thinks is right.He wants a better earth so that his people(or anyone for that matter) can live freely with respect and dignity(in goldenage it was the working class,in silverage/bronzeage it was the kryptonians/aliens)..In time have earth joins the larger intergalactic society.He wanted untapped potential of humanity to be explored as well.He isn't trying to create a new world(not krypton.Since,it had it's own follies).But,he will.If the water goes over his head.If america doesn't become the dream or the promised new world.Clark would take his people(anyone oppressed and weak) and leave .That is very much a course of action i can see clark taking.There won't be anything any lex luthor can do about it.Maybe latter down the line if earth is willing.It and the new world clark creates or leads to can unite.Surprisingly,that has been done by black adam now. That role of gladiator fighting for truth and justice is increasingly given to black adam.Ofcourse,they still keep the villainous side with him being a dictator controlling every aspect.Clark was never in the business of controling anyone or anything.He hid behind the glasses hoping for a better world.But,still risked his life by being a champion as his real self-superman.But if he feels his glasses are being seen as weakness and that percieved weakness is being exploited by the corrupt.He would/should give it up.

[Tzigone]

But we're not talking about why they were introduced, we're talking about why they are still here. It's destruction isn't necessary for Clark to come to earth.

Of course it is. Without the destruction, he stays on Krypton. Anything else would be very contrived. Not that the planet blowing up and humans and Kryptonians looking like each other isn't, but it's an accepted old contrivance, and least it makes sense that parents would try to save their child under those circumstances. I think there's a lot more points of contrivance (rather than the one moment they put Kal-El in a rocket) when Krypton is more involved and there are more Kryptonians. I accept some of those because I like the characters, but the destruction of Krypton, and it's lack of further impact on Clark is the most logical, "cleanest" (in terms of "keep it simple, stupid") version.

Superman originally had to form his identity on his own. He had no contemporaries- even if we use the Earth 2 Golden Age he didn't meet other metahumans until adulthood. So just what it was to be a "Kryptonian on Earth" was up to Clark Kent to define. He wasn't heir to any established tradition that Superman was simply the latest member of.

I agree about the no contemporaries bit. I'd love a story where he was the first. I'm doing that in my headcanon reboot.

[Alpha]

Actually, like I mentioned, Jor-el's controversial research could've led him and Lara to be executed and Clark to be exiled. And the thing is that Krypton being destructed hasn't been a clean slate for a long time. There are always stories about others who survived and about Argo city and Superman gets involved in that. It's destruction isn't necessary to tell the stories that we usually tell with him. Aquaman and Martian Manhunter prove that.

But I think I sort of presented the wrong question. I imagine Krypton as this really advanced technological civilization that tried some kind of transhumanism, which resulted both in them having those powers and creating the phantom zone. I assume that everything has a purpose, and somehow destiny made it so that Clark would end up on earth with all those powers but with none of the knowledge that Kryptonians had. This must have made him better off somehow, but my question is why? Why is a Superman raised with all those powers, but none of the foresight from Krypton, better than him having direct access and knowledge of the history of Krypton's downfall and of their technological discoveries?

I don't subscribe to the idea that adversity is better on it's own. Everything you put in a character's path should force them to see things in ways they wouldn't have otherwise. That's what I mean by purpose.

[Tzigone]

I assume that everything has a purpose, and somehow destiny made it so that Clark would end up on earth with all those powers but with none of the knowledge that Kryptonians had. This must have made him better off somehow, but my question is why?

I don't operate under "destiny" - I largely dislike "destiny" in my fiction. I think everything being meant to be or foretold or foreintended (even without the character's knowledge) removes agency, makes decisions less meaningful, it makes the character a puppet. Someone being moved along by a greater force instead of someone moving themselves along. Everything doesn't have a purpose. Sometimes **** just happens. And I like that for Krypton's destruction, too - they didn't mine their planet to destruction, there wasn't an outside force attacking them, but the planet just died a natural death.

Actually, like I mentioned, Jor-el's controversial research could've led him and Lara to be executed and Clark to be exiled.

Again, this makes no sense to me. If they are a good civilization, then they would not exile an innocent child (or kill his wife for his research, if she wasn't a party to it). And I am sick to death of every fictional civilization we meet being bad (at least to the point of inferior to US or modern-western values), a place no one would want to be. Even civilizations originally good - like Krypton, Thanagar, part of Rann, Themyscira, etc. And if they were evil, why didn't the kill the child, too? Or even exile him somewhere with a red sun. And if they did exile him, why give him details on who killed his parents, better enabling him to seek revenge in the future?

Why is a Superman raised with all those powers, but none of the foresight from Krypton, better than him having direct access and knowledge of the history of Krypton's downfall and of their technological discoveries?

I like it better. It's the original, and the version I first most strongly liked. But, more importantly to me, this is the world he was raised in. Where Clark is one of us, in raising and mentality, at least. That's a reason I don't care for the silver age, but prefer golden age. If he's going to have all that direct knowledge and be primarily Kryptonian in nature and think of himself as Kal-El, then he might as well come to Earth as a full-grown adult.

[Alpha]

I'm not talking about the type of destiny that we have in tropes like "the one". I'm talking about storytelling purpose beyond the idea of plot and towards the message being sent. Kryptonians can't just be a stand in for " Foreign". They have to represent something outside the story. But focus on this idea:
I don't subscribe to the idea that adversity is better on it's own. Everything you put in a character's path should force them to see things in ways they wouldn't have otherwise. That's what I mean by purpose

And I will make this clear, I also think of Clark as a kid that had dreams about red sunlight and being thrown away, but didn't have any way to interpret this. His father is called Jonathan Kent and his mother is Martha Kent. He grew up in a farm distant from everyone, and only here could he use his powers without limits. He jumped around and threw things. He went to church and did his best not to get into trouble. Same thing happened in school. He looked at the stars at night and at the sun during the day, curious about it. He could hear critters miles away and hunted them just to test his limits. He didn't really need to eat and once got into trouble because he hadn't eaten for a week. His mother was both worried and offended becauss she thought he didn't like her cooking. He eventually started to help his dad around the farm. Once he discovered xray vision he learned an important lesson about the fragility and strength of animals, and of human beings. His father once had a heart attack and survived, but Clark despite all his powers couldn't do anything to help him, and had to drive him to the hospital in a truck despite the fact that he would be much faster on foot. At 12 he was bored at night so he started to read this weird long book his mother once bought but never bothered to read. It was called "In Search of Lost Time", by a french guy. It was amazing how he showed the connection in all things, and the difference in all things. It showed the fractured collective perception of reality, and how our senses release things inside us like memories and philosophies. Clark's brain worked like nobody else he knew, he read the giant book in one night. That's when he started to want to learn about the world through words, since despite all his powers the farm was the only safe place. He wanted to understand what colors looked like to other people, what does it feel like to be hurt andl stung by a bee? At the same time, his mother kept hassling him about not getting his clothes covered in mud, and there was this annoying kid in class that always tries to pick fights, and Lana has such beautiful eyes, I wish I could fly so I could take her away and show her everything in the world. Wait, what's that? Bessie the cow is sick? I can see her blood clotting. Oh but her baby is almost born, she can't die right now. And look at how the earth smells when I water the grounds.

I see Clark as a person, more than anyone. Not a cold and unempathetic creature. As a kid he experienced things in a completely different way from others, both closer to nature and beyond current scientific perception. But mentally he was still human, and had a very normal life, aside from his powers. All the choices he makes result from his psychological journey in life. But the story around him, and that is manifested in himself, is a myth with purpose. I think the right version of Clark is one where he experienced things this way, and where Krypton was destroyed because they were obssessed with Transhumanism and with their Rao, who was both their only God and their Sun.

My point is that right now, there is no justification for why the myth of Superman describes Clark as being a better person for being raised on Earth with only the powers of Krypton, and none of their scientific knowledge nor hindsight of their destruction. And while I agree with this, I don't think it's understood why this is.

[Alpha]

And forgive me for the stream of consciousness but I was trying to show how I think Clark's childhood formation was, the way he looked at the world, so you understood that I am deeply invested in him beinga person.

[Alpha]

I think nearly every element in the Superman mythos is amazing and embodies deep meaning for the amazing character of Clark Kent. But I don't think they have been presented in a cohesive and thematically ambitious manner. One of the main puzzles for me is how the destruction of Krypton fuels the mythical purposr of Superman, beyond the comparisons to other stories. Their downfall has to mean something. Manwhohaseverything described them as being technocrats and I don't think this is the best justification because Clark's conflict has never been machines. Yes he has fought them, but they could just as easily be replaced by magical Ogres and it would be the same.