Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 65
  1. #46
    Mighty Member witchboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,494

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I like that sophisticated Lana. She never was the small town girl, because her father was a globe-trotting archaeologist and she would go with him on his adventures. She also was involved with the Legion of Super-Heroes and dated aliens that came to Earth for visits.

    In the Marty Pasko run, she kind of takes the place of 1960s Lois Lane--in trying to get Superman's attention. But she's a powerful woman, anchors the news with Clark. And later she becomes involved with Vartox.

    It is kind of funny that another red-haired reporter who'd been in Europe comes back to the States around the same time--that being Vicki Vale in the Batman comics.

    I don't know why everyone seems to have a problem with the Superman cast being screwed up and having dysfunctional relationships. That's how people really are. It's like some readers want all the characters to act like automatons and follow clear paths forward in life according to a sanitized version of reality. People have emotions that cause them to do weird stuff.
    I love screwed up dysfunctional characters.
    The problem was in that mid 80s relationship drama with Lois/Clark/Lana, Superman wasn't portrayed as screwed up. At least not much. He certainly wasn't shown to be messed up for Clark getting involved with Lana while Superman was still involved with Lois, even if their relationship was rocky. Clark and Lana were shown dating romantically before things were officially over with Lois.
    And I do like sophisticated Lana, I'm just commenting on how different the movie version of her was from the comics.

  2. #47
    Ultimate Member Riv86672's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    10,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I don't know why everyone seems to have a problem with the Superman cast being screwed up and having dysfunctional relationships. That's how people really are. It's like some readers want all the characters to act like automatons and follow clear paths forward in life according to a sanitized version of reality. People have emotions that cause them to do weird stuff.
    Comics are wish fulfillment in a lot of different ways. A lot of ppl want to fly, bend steel bars and swing from buildings. Some like the idea of characters who are ‘meant’ to be together.

  3. #48
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I don't know why everyone seems to have a problem with the Superman cast being screwed up and having dysfunctional relationships. That's how people really are. It's like some readers want all the characters to act like automatons and follow clear paths forward in life according to a sanitized version of reality. People have emotions that cause them to do weird stuff.
    My problem isn't having screwed relationships and stuff like that.But giving it more emphasis than it deserves.I mean,at best clark has a breakup or looses his job.It's not the end of the world.It just doesn't feel like much of anything.
    "People’s Dreams... Have No Ends"

  4. #49
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    Even if Superman and Lois are eventually meant to be together, it's fun to see them struggling against everything that gets in the way of that--whether it's a physical or psychological impediment. That's the basic stuff in love stories. Yes, by the end of the story they might get together at last, like Pierre and Natasha in WAR AND PEACE or Gabriel and Bathsheba in FAR FROM THE MADDING CROWD, while in other stories the world situation drives them apart, like Rick and Ilsa in CASABLANCA. But between the beginning and the end of the story is all the good stuff in the middle.

    I wonder what everyone thinks of how Jules Feiffer saw the Superman/Lois/Clark triangle. I don't necessarily think he was correct, but his idea was that Superman thinks he's too good for Lois and Lois thinks she's too good for Clark. But since Superman is Clark, it's his own private joke. He's mocking regular human beings through his portrayal of Clark Kent--that is what the Man of Steel thinks of human beings, as far as he can understand them at all. He's standoffish with Lois Lane, because she can't possibly understand what it's like to be him. But he delights in submitting to her as Clark Kent, just for the giggles.

  5. #50
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post

    I wonder what everyone thinks of how Jules Feiffer saw the Superman/Lois/Clark triangle. I don't necessarily think he was correct, but his idea was that Superman thinks he's too good for Lois and Lois thinks she's too good for Clark. But since Superman is Clark, it's his own private joke. He's mocking regular human beings through his portrayal of Clark Kent--that is what the Man of Steel thinks of human beings, as far as he can understand them at all. He's standoffish with Lois Lane, because she can't possibly understand what it's like to be him. But he delights in submitting to her as Clark Kent, just for the giggles.
    Wow, beyond awful.

  6. #51
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackDaw View Post
    Wow, beyond awful.
    Probably my poor prose not doing justice. Nothing Jules Feiffer writes is awful--he has a great way with words. Even if I disagree with him, I enjoy what he has to say and how he says it.

  7. #52
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    Probably my poor prose not doing justice. Nothing Jules Feiffer writes is awful--he has a great way with words. Even if I disagree with him, I enjoy what he has to say and how he says it.
    Your prose is better than mine 99 percent of the time!

    The thing I thought awful was “He’s mocking regular human beings...”

    Maybe awful is wrong. Let’s put it this way, that would be a characterisation of Superman I’d dislike so much I wouldn’t want to read the stories concerned.

  8. #53
    Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,747

    Default

    THE GREAT COMIC BOOK HEROES (1965), Jules Feiffer:

    The particular brilliance of Superman lay not only in the fact that he was the first of the super-heroes, but in the concept of his alter ego. What made Superman different from the legion of imitators to follow was not that when he took off his clothes he could beat up everybody — they all did that. What made Superman extraordinary was his point of origin: Clark Kent.

    Remember, Kent was not Superman’s true identity as Bruce Wayne was the Batman’s or (on radio) Lamont Cranston the Shadow’s. Just the opposite. Clark Kent was the fiction. Previous heroes — the Shadow, the Green Hornet, The Lone Ranger — were not only more vulnerable; they were fakes. I don’t mean to criticize; it’s just a statement of fact. The Shadow had to cloud men’s minds to be in business. The Green Hornet had to go through the fetishist fol-de-rol of donning costume, floppy hat, black mask, gas gun, menacing automobile, and insect sound effects before he was even ready to go out in the street. The Lone Ranger needed an accoutrement white horse, an Indian, and an establishing cry of Hi-Yo Silver to separate him from all those other masked men running around the West in days of yesteryear.

    But Superman had only to wake up in the morning to be Superman. In his case, Clark Kent was the put-on. The fellow with the eyeglasses and the acne and the walk girls laughed at wasn’t real, didn’t exist, was a sacrificial disguise, an act of discreet martyrdom. Had they but known!

    And for what purpose? Did Superman become Clark Kent in order to lead a normal life, have friends, be known as a nice guy, meet girls? Hardly. There’s too much of the hair shirt in the role, too much devotion to the imprimatur of impotence — an insight, perhaps, into the fantasy life of the Man of Steel. Superman as a secret masochist? Field for study there. For if it was otherwise, if the point, the only point, was to lead a “normal life,” why not a more typical identity? How can one be a cowardly star reporter, subject to fainting spells in time of crisis, and not expect to raise serious questions?

    The truth may be that Kent existed not for the purposes of the story but for the reader. He is Superman’s opinion of the rest of us, a pointed caricature of what we, the noncriminal element, were really like. His fake identity was our real one. That’s why we loved him so. For if that wasn’t really us, if there were no Clark Kents, only lots of glasses and cheap suits which, when removed, revealed all of us in our true identities —what a hell of an improved world it would have been!

    . . . It seems that among Lois Lane, Clark Kent, and Superman there existed a schizoid and chaste menage a trois. Clark Kent loved but felt abashed with Lois Lane; Superman saved Lois Lane when she was in trouble, found her a pest the rest of the time. Since Superman and Clark Kent were the same person this behavior demands explanation. It can’t be that Kent wanted Lois to respect him for himself, since himself was Superman. Then, it appears, he wanted Lois to respect him for his fake self, to love him when he acted the coward, to be there when he pretended he needed her. She never was — so, of course, he loved her. A typical American romance. Superman never needed her, never needed anybody, in any event, Lois chased him — so, of course, he didn’t love her. He had contempt for her. Another typical American romance. Love is really the pursuit of a desired object, not pursuit by it. Once you’re caught the object there is no longer any reason to love it, to have it hanging around. There must be other desirable objects out there, somewhere. So Clark Kent acted as the control for Superman. What Kent wanted was just that which Superman didn’t want to be bothered with. Kent wanted Lois, Superman didn’t — thus marking the difference between a sissy and a man. A sissy wanted girls who scorned him; a man scorned girls who wanted him. Our cultural opposite of the man who didn’t make out with women has never been the man who did — but rather the man who could if he wanted to, but still didn’t. The ideal of masculine strength, whether Gary Cooper’s, Lil Abner’s or Superman’s was for one to be so virile and handsome, to be in such a position of strength, that he need never go near girls. Except to help them. And then get the hell out. Real rapport was not for women. It was for villains. That’s why they got hit so hard.

  9. #54
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    I wonder what everyone thinks of how Jules Feiffer saw the Superman/Lois/Clark triangle. I don't necessarily think he was correct, but his idea was that Superman thinks he's too good for Lois and Lois thinks she's too good for Clark. But since Superman is Clark, it's his own private joke. He's mocking regular human beings through his portrayal of Clark Kent--that is what the Man of Steel thinks of human beings, as far as he can understand them at all. He's standoffish with Lois Lane, because she can't possibly understand what it's like to be him. But he delights in submitting to her as Clark Kent, just for the giggles.
    I for one think humanity isn't above being laughed at.On the flipside,I think the difference is superman knows he himself isn't above flaws of it.Even if he is different.So the idea that superman thinks lois is beneath him is very much false.It's abundantly clear that lois is the only gal superman was atleast interested in that way or challenged him.Which has always been my take.Superman isn't above humanity.He's just different.Therefore he has a different view on things and can make fun of humanity.Yes,clark kent with glasses does that many a times.Whether it's directly addressing the society(people not being able to see clark as superman.So the superficial nature of society) or through the persona(clark kent with glasses being a coward sometimes.I believe,clark is making fun of himself as a guy who is hiding and his own fears).Like the monkey king,sun wukong.
    "People’s Dreams... Have No Ends"

  10. #55
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,348

    Default

    Jim, Thanks for giving the full Feiffer quote, interesting.

    I much prefer the take Alan Moore took in those two great stories “For The Man who has Everything” and “Whatever happened...”: that ulimately Superman regarded his human heritage (down to the love of his foster parents) as more important than his Kryptonian heritage and powers.

  11. #56
    Ultimate Member Riv86672's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    10,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackDaw View Post
    Your prose is better than mine 99 percent of the time!

    The thing I thought awful was “He’s mocking regular human beings...”

    Maybe awful is wrong. Let’s put it this way, that would be a characterisation of Superman I’d dislike so much I wouldn’t want to read the stories concerned.
    Same.
    I don’t have to like and agree w. anyone’s interpretation of a character, no matter how skillfully it may (or may not) be handled and pretty it looks.
    I didn’t like Snyder’s version of Supes’ world/his Jonathan Kent.
    I didn’t like Frank Miller’s I’m the goddamn Batman.
    I didn’t like Wonder Woman and Supes as a couple no matter how hard Charles Soule tried to convince me I should.

  12. #57
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackDaw View Post
    Jim, Thanks for giving the full Feiffer quote, interesting.

    I much prefer the take Alan Moore took in those two great stories “For The Man who has Everything” and “Whatever happened...”: that ulimately Superman regarded his human heritage (down to the love of his foster parents) as more important than his Kryptonian heritage and powers.
    Did he?I don't remember that.He takes a new name in whatever,like nothing(jordan elliot).For the man has him dreaming about krypton.If clark was content here there wouldn't be a dream.Clark wouldn't be fighting for it.He isn't content.Therefore there is a neverending battle.Now,having said that doesn't mean he isn't one of us.It just means there are thing to take care of.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 02-26-2021 at 11:22 AM.
    "People’s Dreams... Have No Ends"

  13. #58
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Did he?I don't remember that.He takes a new name in whatever,like nothing(jordan elliot).For the man has him dreaming about krypton.If clark was content here there wouldn't be a dream.Clark wouldn't be fighting for it.
    It’s there by inference, I think.

    In “For the Man who has Everything” the dream of Kyrpton was going “wrong” towards the end, his spirit was rejecting the idea of a Kryptonian utopia...it was that as much as the help of his friends that allowed him to break free from the Black Orchid.

    It is there I think more explicitly in “Whatever happened...” in two scenes particularly. First in the great speech he made, effectively saying because no one else could hold him to account for killing the imp that he had to do it himself..he didn’t want to be above humanity, but part of it.

    Then right at the end of the story he was supremely happy as a normal human..and in a second wonderful speech demonstrated his confidence that normal humanity would always cope without some godlike being to help them.

  14. #59
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackDaw View Post
    ItÂ’s there by inference, I think.

    In “For the Man who has Everything” the dream of Kyrpton was going “wrong” towards the end, his spirit was rejecting the idea of a Kryptonian utopia...it was that as much as the help of his friends that allowed him to break free from the Black Orchid.

    It is there I think more explicitly in “Whatever happened...” in two scenes particularly. First in the great speech he made, effectively saying because no one else could hold him to account for killing the imp that he had to do it himself..he didn’t want to be above humanity, but part of it.

    Then right at the end of the story he was supremely happy as a normal human..and in a second wonderful speech demonstrated his confidence that normal humanity would always cope without some godlike being to help them.
    I see it more as clark saying "I am done being stuck in the past" and true he does reject kryptonian utopia.But,that's more his own nostalgia induced vision of krypton being a utopia that was rejected,than his own kryptonian existence.Moreover,does krypton or kryptonian society need to be a utopia to critique earth/society of humans?Yes,he is living as normal person.True.But,then at the end he scoffs at the very idea of superman for being to hung up on things.He laughs at himself for ever being like "the world can't go on without superman".Clark might be happy living as a human.But,superman died with his first kill.Then he is reborn as clark's son.There is a reason we have clark winking at the camera and his son jon crushing coal into diamonds.The classic fourth wall breaking winks were part of the glasses persona joke.So,i say he is still laughing at himself and society as a whole.That's saying,it might be an imaginary story and the idea might be ridiculous.But that doesn't mean there is no merit to it.

    Already said,you don't need to be above humanity to critcise it.You can do that while being part of it or outside of it.I tend to see clark as outside of it.Even an ant colony can be used to criticise humanity.This binary that superman has to be a god or a man is reductive.Why isn't martian manhunter asked to be human?why aren't the mutants?Like it or not clark is created with immigrant experiences.There is a satirical element to superman.The glasses persona is based on a slapstick character harold lloyd.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 02-26-2021 at 12:04 PM.
    "People’s Dreams... Have No Ends"

  15. #60
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Kelly View Post
    THE GREAT COMIC BOOK HEROES (1965), Jules Feiffer:

    The particular brilliance of Superman lay not only in the fact that he was the first of the super-heroes, but in the concept of his alter ego. What made Superman different from the legion of imitators to follow was not that when he took off his clothes he could beat up everybody — they all did that. What made Superman extraordinary was his point of origin: Clark Kent.

    Remember, Kent was not Superman’s true identity as Bruce Wayne was the Batman’s or (on radio) Lamont Cranston the Shadow’s. Just the opposite. Clark Kent was the fiction. Previous heroes — the Shadow, the Green Hornet, The Lone Ranger — were not only more vulnerable; they were fakes. I don’t mean to criticize; it’s just a statement of fact. The Shadow had to cloud men’s minds to be in business. The Green Hornet had to go through the fetishist fol-de-rol of donning costume, floppy hat, black mask, gas gun, menacing automobile, and insect sound effects before he was even ready to go out in the street. The Lone Ranger needed an accoutrement white horse, an Indian, and an establishing cry of Hi-Yo Silver to separate him from all those other masked men running around the West in days of yesteryear.

    But Superman had only to wake up in the morning to be Superman. In his case, Clark Kent was the put-on. The fellow with the eyeglasses and the acne and the walk girls laughed at wasn’t real, didn’t exist, was a sacrificial disguise, an act of discreet martyrdom. Had they but known!

    And for what purpose? Did Superman become Clark Kent in order to lead a normal life, have friends, be known as a nice guy, meet girls? Hardly. There’s too much of the hair shirt in the role, too much devotion to the imprimatur of impotence — an insight, perhaps, into the fantasy life of the Man of Steel. Superman as a secret masochist? Field for study there. For if it was otherwise, if the point, the only point, was to lead a “normal life,” why not a more typical identity? How can one be a cowardly star reporter, subject to fainting spells in time of crisis, and not expect to raise serious questions?

    The truth may be that Kent existed not for the purposes of the story but for the reader. He is Superman’s opinion of the rest of us, a pointed caricature of what we, the noncriminal element, were really like. His fake identity was our real one. That’s why we loved him so. For if that wasn’t really us, if there were no Clark Kents, only lots of glasses and cheap suits which, when removed, revealed all of us in our true identities —what a hell of an improved world it would have been!

    . . . It seems that among Lois Lane, Clark Kent, and Superman there existed a schizoid and chaste menage a trois. Clark Kent loved but felt abashed with Lois Lane; Superman saved Lois Lane when she was in trouble, found her a pest the rest of the time. Since Superman and Clark Kent were the same person this behavior demands explanation. It can’t be that Kent wanted Lois to respect him for himself, since himself was Superman. Then, it appears, he wanted Lois to respect him for his fake self, to love him when he acted the coward, to be there when he pretended he needed her. She never was — so, of course, he loved her. A typical American romance. Superman never needed her, never needed anybody, in any event, Lois chased him — so, of course, he didn’t love her. He had contempt for her. Another typical American romance. Love is really the pursuit of a desired object, not pursuit by it. Once you’re caught the object there is no longer any reason to love it, to have it hanging around. There must be other desirable objects out there, somewhere. So Clark Kent acted as the control for Superman. What Kent wanted was just that which Superman didn’t want to be bothered with. Kent wanted Lois, Superman didn’t — thus marking the difference between a sissy and a man. A sissy wanted girls who scorned him; a man scorned girls who wanted him. Our cultural opposite of the man who didn’t make out with women has never been the man who did — but rather the man who could if he wanted to, but still didn’t. The ideal of masculine strength, whether Gary Cooper’s, Lil Abner’s or Superman’s was for one to be so virile and handsome, to be in such a position of strength, that he need never go near girls. Except to help them. And then get the hell out. Real rapport was not for women. It was for villains. That’s why they got hit so hard.
    Its an interesting interpretation of the character, and one I wouldn't blame anyone for coming up with based on the Silver Age take.

    But does anyone really believe that this was what was going on in Superman's mind? That 'Clark Kent' was really just him trolling humanity? That he was just messing with Lois and 'critiquing' her, and all of us?

    I can understand Feiffer believing that this may have consciously or subconciously been the intent of writers and editors working on the character, but you can't seriously consider this to be valid in-universe.

    That said, I agree with the idea that Pre-Crisis mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent existed to a large extent for the reader's benefit - we could all imagine that underneath our ordinary humdrum milquetoast selves we were secretely Superman!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •