"Superman" is a Mantle

[Celgress]

Well, he's the only one that really matters.

The others can be lifted from the mythos and it doesn't change.

A valid point and one everything boils down to when you think about it.

[Superboy-Prime]

Well, he's the only one that really matters.

The others can be lifted from the mythos and it doesn't change.

You're missing the point. Everybody knows how important Clark is to the mythos he started. There's just no reason to endlessly debate in circles about how he should be the only one. He will never be the only Superman.

[stargazer01]

It makes sense storywise that his son would want to grow up and be like his father, a hero. He can be a Superman and part of his legacy, but the most important thing for me is, Will people love and accept him as the new Superman and say bye to Clark Kent forever?

I don't think so. Clark Kent is also iconic not just Superman. People are invested in his story. Will they be also as invested in Jon's story? I dunno. Maybe, but not as much. At the same time, it's important that Superman has his own legacy and family like say Batman, but not at their expense...

[SiegePerilous02]

You're missing the point. Everybody knows how important Clark is to the mythos he started. There's just no reason to endlessly debate in circles about how he should be the only one. He will never be the only Superman.

It's not just one POV making this debate endless.

Yeah he factually isn't the only Superman in the mythos. But somebody like Val-Zod who is a relatively new character from an elseworld or, say, some one-off character from an imaginary tale in the 60s shouldn't be made out to be a bigger deal than it actually is. He effectively is the only one (the one that matters) as far as wider pop culture is concerned and having the vast majority of the published material.

[Superboy-Prime]

Being the "only one" isn't the same as being the most popular. There's nothing subjective about Clark not being the only Superman, he just isn't.

[SiegePerilous02]

Being the "only one" isn't the same as being the most popular. There's nothing subjective about Clark not being the only Superman, he just isn't.

Again, "most popular" is a simplification of what we're saying. Superman is not just a mantle he wears, it's part of his identity and is embedded in pop culture at large. When people know Superman's name without ever consuming any Superman media, we're dealing with something bigger than "popularity."

Yeah there are some other small gimmicks where other characters get called Superman, but they are just gimmicks only hardcore comic nerds know or care about. They aren't even on the same level as Terry McGinnis.

[Sacred Knight]

Here's another way of thinking it that I think gets across where I and others come from. Who is the mascot of Walt Disney? Mickey Mouse. Its just common knowledge. Disney=Mickey. Was he objectively the only Disney mascot ever? No. Does anyone know Oswald the Lucky Rabbit right off the bat? Probably not. He doesn't matter. Mickey Mouse matters. Same applies here. Does society at large know Jon Kent is going to be Superman? No. Hell the majority don't even know this character exists. How about Val-Zod in another reality, or Calvin Ellis? Outside of staunch comic book fandom no. Hell some of these instances maybe not even in casual comic fandom. Because they don't matter. Clark Kent/Kal-El matters. These are all side-bars, hangers on. I even like the latter two characters, but at the end of the day that's what they are. So objectively, there have been other characters to be called Superman before this, there probably will be some after this. Obviously I concur that. But none of them mean anything of import to the larger mythos built but Clark.

[manwhohaseverything]

That remains to be seen whether the society has knowledge of Jon Kent superman or not.

[SiegePerilous02]

That remains to be seen whether the society has knowledge of Jon Kent superman or not.

They may eventually.

Way to early to tell at this point, and it will still need a considerable length of time before he becomes even half way as associated with the name of "Superman" as Clark is.

[stargazer01]

They may eventually.

Way to early to tell at this point, and it will still need a considerable length of time before he becomes even half way as associated with the name of "Superman" as Clark is.

Clark Kent is part of pop culture for decades. Even big time politicians from the world mention him in speeches.

[bat39]

Being the "only one" isn't the same as being the most popular. There's nothing subjective about Clark not being the only Superman, he just isn't.

If your point was that there are other characters apart from Clark Kent/Superman who've held the mantle of Superman...well, you're right. Case closed.

But the idea implicit in the thread title, the notion that Superman is just a 'mantle' akin to Flash or Green Lantern rather than being intrinsically linked to one person who's been a pop-cultural behemoth for over eight decades...well, that was bound to cause more than a little debate

[Sacred Knight]

That remains to be seen whether the society has knowledge of Jon Kent superman or not.

Maybe in 50 years if he lasts that long. And I don't think that's hyperbole. Supergirl is a common knowledge character. Is Kon-El? John Henry Irons? I'd argue no way, even if those two have been in other media before. They're still not common knowledge associates. You have to be a Robin to his Batman. Or, speaking of Batman, maybe by being a mythos that's just so on top of the world that lots of stuff you throw at the wall in that timeframe sticks. And Superman hasn't been at that level in a long time.

[Superboy-Prime]

Superboy isn't a mantle.

[manwhohaseverything]

Maybe in 50 years if he lasts that long. And I don't think that's hyperbole. Supergirl is a common knowledge character. Is Kon-El? John Henry Irons? I'd argue no way, even if those two have been in other media before. They're still not common knowledge associates. You have to be a Robin to his Batman. Or, speaking of Batman, maybe by being a mythos that's just so on top of the world that lots of stuff you throw at the wall in that timeframe sticks. And Superman hasn't been at that level in a long time.

Things have picked up pace.We live in an information age.That means,it doesn't require 50 years.Unlike john henry and even conner.Jon has a built in selling point for recognition.He is the son of superman.You don't need a back story or explanation for that.The guy in my avatar is walker.Which one?beats me.It doesn't matter.All superman has to be is a kent or an L.

[Sacred Knight]

We've lived in an information age for a while and not much has changed though, so I'm not holding my breath that Jon's going to become a household name any time soon. I think you overstate the built in selling point. Damian is the son of Batman and if you asked 10 people on the street who Robin is, you'd still have most answering Dick Grayson if they knew any of the civilian names at all or even realized there's ever been more than one.