Originally Posted by
Adekis
I feel like The World answered Superlad's critique for me, at least by half. The extent to which Kal's MO hasn't always straight up been the concept of in Jon's Brand New Mission Statement is a good amount because is that Superman hasn't always been written to live up to that potential (though I wouldn't necessarily single out post-Crisis to the exclusion of every other take). It is, however, that potential which has always been the character's core ideals.
In his earliest appearances, Superman is said have "turned his titanic strength to channels that will benefit mankind," and in many stories from many eras, Clark Kent does the same thing, being no less a crusader for justice than Lois is, for all Taylor's decision to laud her influence as a major distinguishing factor between Jon and his dad.
So why isn't Clark / Superman always Fighting For Change and Making a Difference, over the last eighty-three years? Because he's a cartoon character, my dudes. Because if he lives up to his true potential and fixes our broken world, it wouldn't be social commentary anymore, it'd just be speculative fiction. And that's gonna be equally as true for Jon. This is the elephant in the room here, we all know Jon isn't going to change the world either. Not in real life, not in any way that actually solves the problems Jon and Clark BOTH want to see solved.
Will Jon's inevitable failure to change the real world from his comic book page result in Superman's grandson one day making the same critique of his father?
Regardless of the impossibility of success, I like the stories where Superman tries to change the world, and I even like the few imaginary stories or alternate timelines where he succeeds, and I don't think it's unfair to want that history of the character acknowledged by Taylor, and Morrison, and by Jon and Kal.
Reply With Quote
