The Return of Pa and Ma

[Jim Kelly]

It's hard for me to decide which I like better classic Superboy or classic Superman. They're both Clark Kent, but they each have their own distinct qualities that make them so good.

I'd say that Superboy lives in a nicer and more wonderful world. Smallville is a cute little town. Clark plays with his dog. He has loving parents who help him with his teen-age problems. His group of young friends are from different planets.

Superman's life is a bit more grim. He's on his own, only has his cousin to confide in, and has the problems of the world weighing heavily upon him.

The death of Jonathan and Martha sets a clear division between these two segments of his life. He can't go home again. That nice, wonderful world can never be again. While that's sad, it also gives the Superboy stories their own territory to play in. You want stories about Clark getting love and support from his parents--that's Superboy. You want stories of Clark having epic adventures with a group of young teens in a futuristic universe--that's also Superboy. This is his schtick. And Superman has his own schtick.

[Prime]

I want them dead tbh. They work better dead.

[Vordan]

Why does Superman needs to fail? Why does Clark need death to make him realize he can't do everything? Reading the Jerry Siegel stories. Clark started a campaign to raise awareness for Metropolis slums. He doesn't convince nobody despite his best efforts, but he doesn't stop. He pushes on to the Federal government (why not State, no idea). You probably know the story I am talking about. Clark didn't use his powers, he didn't put on his costume for none of it (except to fight some gangsters). So, why make that development central to his character? Clark should already know he can't solve or do everything with his powers. No need for death or to fail.

ETA: Someone will bring up Clark became a reporter because he failed to save someone. I agree, but it's not the same as Clark learning he can''t always save someone. It was Clark seeing his methodology didn't work. Unless I've misinterpreted, again.

Because he can’t be an effective symbol of hope if he never fails or experiences any suffering. What’s inspirational about Chad Kent the high school football champ, turned star reporter who bags one of the hottest women in Metropolis, with a loving son who adores him, and everyone worships him as a living deity, with the only ones who don’t like him being either evil or jealous? It’s easy for that guy to talk about how you just gotta “hope HARDER!” when things get tough, it makes him into a hollow caricature who can’t really relate to the average person at all.

Superman’s values of compassion and hope hold more meaning if they’re principles he sticks to even when **** hits the fan and he’s tempted to give into despair. Especially when two of the highest profile Superman adaptions in the DCEU and Injustice portray him as a guy who can’t handle loss well without turning evil. Going off of the poll most people are happy with how the Kents have been used post resurrection, but all the Kents have done has been the same wholesome bait they always did, and we got that via flashbacks under Snyder and Bendis.

They don’t need to be alive to be used in the way most of you are satisfied with, and arguably they work better the way most of you prefer being dead.

[ironman2978]

Because he can’t be an effective symbol of hope if he never fails or experiences any suffering. What’s inspirational about Chad Kent the high school football champ, turned star reporter who bags one of the hottest women in Metropolis, with a loving son who adores him, and everyone worships him as a living deity, with the only ones who don’t like him being either evil or jealous? It’s easy for that guy to talk about how you just gotta “hope HARDER!” when things get tough, it makes him into a hollow caricature who can’t really relate to the average person at all.

Superman’s values of compassion and hope hold more meaning if they’re principles he sticks to even when **** hits the fan and he’s tempted to give into despair. Especially when two of the highest profile Superman adaptions in the DCEU and Injustice portray him as a guy who can’t handle loss well without turning evil. Going off of the poll most people are happy with how the Kents have been used post resurrection, but all the Kents have done has been the same wholesome bait they always did, and we got that via flashbacks under Snyder and Bendis.

They don’t need to be alive to be used in the way most of you are satisfied with, and arguably they work better the way most of you prefer being dead.

Honestly all of this. It feels ironic, in attempting to make Superman more human/“relatable “, the initial post crisis Superman felt more alien and forced to me. Even the reason he started saving people felt hollow to me. I think besides serving as a distinction between his life before and after Superman, none of what I saw with the Kent’s living (with the exception of Birthright and maybe one or two other work), I never saw the need of the Kents being alive as a testament to how human Clark really is.

For the human tie aspects, we got characters like Pete Ross, Lana Lang, Jimmy Olsen, Lois, Perry and multiple characters who don’t get utilized but never get as much outcry for not being used, the Kent’s being dead doesn’t necessarily take away or remove Clark’s human connections (there are multiple Bronze Age stories like the Private Life of Clark Kent and even New 52 Superman or even novels like It’s Superman that dispute that argument). In fact , Clark’s whole thing as a journalist is keeping an ear closer to the street and being involved with humanity.

It feels more like the Kent’s being alive when Clark is Superman give the illusion of Clark’s humanity when there are other ways to show it , with or without their death. It just feels superficial when you see them brought back but not really add anything that other characters couldn’t.

Superman failing and suffering a close loss, isn’t just him learning that he can’t save everyone but it’s also a testament to how strong his character is. When his parents died, he didn’t feel guilt to level of Spider-Man or swear vengeance. He wanted to use his gifts and help people, he used the lessons he learned and wanted to honor his parents by helping people the best way he knew how.

[Agent Z]

Because he can’t be an effective symbol of hope if he never fails or experiences any suffering. What’s inspirational about Chad Kent the high school football champ, turned star reporter who bags one of the hottest women in Metropolis, with a loving son who adores him, and everyone worships him as a living deity, with the only ones who don’t like him being either evil or jealous? It’s easy for that guy to talk about how you just gotta “hope HARDER!” when things get tough, it makes him into a hollow caricature who can’t really relate to the average person at all.

Superman’s values of compassion and hope hold more meaning if they’re principles he sticks to even when **** hits the fan and he’s tempted to give into despair. Especially when two of the highest profile Superman adaptions in the DCEU and Injustice portray him as a guy who can’t handle loss well without turning evil. Going off of the poll most people are happy with how the Kents have been used post resurrection, but all the Kents have done has been the same wholesome bait they always did, and we got that via flashbacks under Snyder and Bendis.

They don’t need to be alive to be used in the way most of you are satisfied with, and arguably they work better the way most of you prefer being dead.

I really don't get why anyone thinks Injustice has some major influence on how the public sees Superman. It's a video game series with a laughable joke of a plot that has to perform Olympic-level gymnastics for why any character does what they do. No one is going to come away thinking this is how Superman is really like. Ditto for Wonder Woman.

I've already pointed out multiple times how mind control played a part in Darkseid corrupting Superman in the DCEU and is no different from what has happened to other heroes, but I find it weird that for all that people complain about the tornado scene, they ignore that it clearly shows Clark can deal with loss since he didn't become a supervillain afterwards.

As for the Kents dying, I don't know why anyone thinks them being alive means Clark never experiences hardship or loss at all. That wasn't the case even in the comics and the idea that Clark having a loving family that is still alive means he never understands what it means to be human sounds like a huge strawman of why people prefer the Kents alive or don't think they need to die.

[Vordan]

As for the Kents dying, I don't know why anyone thinks them being alive means Clark never experiences hardship or loss at all. That wasn't the case even in the comics and the idea that Clark having a loving family that is still alive means he never understands what it means to be human sounds like a huge strawman of why people prefer the Kents alive or don't think they need to die.

Hah I’ve gotten this thread off track! This was mainly just me asking if people who DO want the Kents alive are happy with how they’ve been used, not arguing over whether they SHOULD be dead or not.

Clark needs a major loss to demonstrate that his ideals have been tested in the harshest way possible, and that loss needs to be something that the readers themselves care about too. Otherwise you get the common depiction of Clark being a naive hick farm boy whose ideals are the product of him being a good ol boy from Kansas who is too simple to understand the “real world”. That loss demonstrates that Clark is very much aware that life sucks and is unfair and that he can’t save everyone.

Now you might argue that another character could serve the same role, but history would beg to differ. Nobody remembers or cares about Cat Grant’s son, or Lex’s daughter, or the various other attempts they’ve made to do exactly that. All have been lost to continuity changes, and honestly none hold the simple power of having your parents die in your teens when you’re most emotionally vulnerable. You could argue Krypton and the Els do that, but changing Kal’s origin to losing them when he was only a baby and thus doesn’t remember them weakens that, as does the frequent claims that Kal is human at heart, so losing Krypton wasn’t really that big a loss for him since he’s not really Kryptonian (the Byrne portrayal).

But ironically thanks to the Kents being alive for so long, people do care about the Kents, so killing them off actually is even more effective now. People get that losing the Kents was this big event for Clark, but he’s still a good man who didn’t give into grief, and that’s far more inspirational than Pa sharing some home grown wisdom while watching the corn grow or Ma offering a pithy saying over pie. Besides:




You can still get that, and it hits so much harder if it’s Clark remembering his dead parents advice rather than literally flying back to Kansas for a pep talk. Nothing they’ve done with the Kents since they’ve come back has hit as good as those two moments I posted when they were dead.

[DABellWrites]

Because he can’t be an effective symbol of hope if he never fails or experiences any suffering. What’s inspirational about Chad Kent the high school football champ, turned star reporter who bags one of the hottest women in Metropolis, with a loving son who adores him, and everyone worships him as a living deity, with the only ones who don’t like him being either evil or jealous? It’s easy for that guy to talk about how you just gotta “hope HARDER!” when things get tough, it makes him into a hollow caricature who can’t really relate to the average person at all.

Superman’s values of compassion and hope hold more meaning if they’re principles he sticks to even when **** hits the fan and he’s tempted to give into despair. Especially when two of the highest profile Superman adaptions in the DCEU and Injustice portray him as a guy who can’t handle loss well without turning evil. Going off of the poll most people are happy with how the Kents have been used post resurrection, but all the Kents have done has been the same wholesome bait they always did, and we got that via flashbacks under Snyder and Bendis.

They don’t need to be alive to be used in the way most of you are satisfied with, and arguably they work better the way most of you prefer being dead.

The whole symbol of hope and being inspirational is doing more harm than good for Superman. It's a weak and thin concept that can be easily destroyed once question start being asked about what Superman does and doesn't do. How can a character be a symbol of hope and he doesn't do anything? So, we just want Clark to fly around and say nice speeches all the time? In my opinion, Clark has lost what made him good. His agency. He's become limited on what he can and cannot do thanks to $$$.

Also, for the character. I don't care if Clark never experiences the bad part of life. It's more inspiring to me that Clark is a man who could be living the good life, but instead he dedicate his life to helping others and doing what he can to make the world a better place. We do not have to experience a lot of the things we know is wrong, to know they are wrong. Why does Clark need to experience death to strengthen his role as a hero?

[Ascended]

It's really all about the trade-off.

Nobody likes a protagonist who never loses or suffers. And for Clark specifically, all his talk about hope and overcoming adversity and doing the right thing....that stuff rings hollow when he's got a perfect life and things have always gone his way.

One of the great writers, maybe Maggin (?) said that Clark is how Superman experiences failure and loss, and Superman is how Clark experiences victory. You need that duality or Superman ends up looking like a self-righteous smuck. And the greater Superman is, the deeper his losses have to go.

Yes, the man lost his entire homeworld, but that's too....large....a loss for us to connect with. As they say, a single death is a tragedy while a hundred deaths is a statistic.

One of the key differences between Clark and Bruce is that Bruce lets the bad days define him. He never raises above them, not truly. Clark does. But if Clark doesn't have any bad days? Then he's a self-righteous bastard talking down to us. If he's suffered, on a deep and personal level, but *still* doesn't let those bad days define him, then he's inspirational.

[SiegePerilous02]

It's really all about the trade-off.

Nobody likes a protagonist who never loses or suffers. And for Clark specifically, all his talk about hope and overcoming adversity and doing the right thing....that stuff rings hollow when he's got a perfect life and things have always gone his way.

One of the great writers, maybe Maggin (?) said that Clark is how Superman experiences failure and loss, and Superman is how Clark experiences victory. You need that duality or Superman ends up looking like a self-righteous smuck. And the greater Superman is, the deeper his losses have to go.

Yes, the man lost his entire homeworld, but that's too....large....a loss for us to connect with. As they say, a single death is a tragedy while a hundred deaths is a statistic.

One of the key differences between Clark and Bruce is that Bruce lets the bad days define him. He never raises above them, not truly. Clark does. But if Clark doesn't have any bad days? Then he's a self-righteous bastard talking down to us. If he's suffered, on a deep and personal level, but *still* doesn't let those bad days define him, then he's inspirational.

All of this, but I'd also add that the death of the Kents isn't even a heavy, grim topic that brings Clark down. If they die under mundane circumstances, that's just a fact of life that the majority of people have to deal with. If Clark loses them in his early 20s, and can carry on despite how much of a blow that still is, it hits just the right level of relateability. This moment combined with Clark growing up feeling like a weirdo outcast (but still having loving parents, and friends like Pete, Lana and the Legion) is going to resonate with people far more than Clark being the most popular jock in school who hasn't suffered even any average/mundane hardships. If that guy wants to tell me to hope a little more and things will work out, I'd tell him to piss right off. Whereas the first guy experiencing periodic loneliness and losing his parents at what is still a young age would resonate more.

I believe Byrne also said he kept the Kents alive because he couldn't imagine Clark not ending up like Batman if they were dead. I can't remotely see the logic in that. It conveys a very immature outlook on grief and how different people process it. Even Bruce wasn't always acting like Bruce as we know him now, and his parents ALWAYS get gunned down in an alley.

[Jon Clark]

Never really thought Krypton's destruction counted as a tragedy for Superman. Until he created a memory scanner there was no living memory of the place in the Bronze/Silver Age. The Golden Age and Post-Crisis didn't even remember the place until adulthood.

Losing the Kents was the major loss for the first 48 years

[Jim Kelly]

Not to quibble but there's not a lot of evidence for what Clark knew or didn't know about his birth and how he came to be so powerful, prior to "Superman's Return to Krypton," SUPERMAN 61 (November-December 1949), written by Bill Finger.

There's only one panel from the dailies where he says that he doesn't know where he comes from. That's in daily 285, December 13th, 1939.



To me that's not strong enough evidence to claim that for ten years he has no idea about his origins in the comics. I think it's really up in the air just what he knows before 1949--and "Superman's Return to Krypton" could be a reset. It's after Siegel and Shuster have been sent packing and now Mort Weisinger is putting his stamp on the character. Yet only about half a year after that is "When Superboy Was a Superbaby," SUPERBOY 8 (May-June 1950), written by Bill Finger, where young Clark does know he came to Earth in a rocketship.

[Jon Clark]

Knowing he arrived in a rocket only means the Kents told him how he was found. Actually remembering Jor-El, Lara or even Krypto is something else.

Knowing that your grandfather died before your third birthday is different than actually having memories of the man and missing him. One is a personal tragedy, the other other is just some bad event you've heard about.

[Jim Kelly]

Knowing he arrived in a rocket only means the Kents told him how he was found. Actually remembering Jor-El, Lara or even Krypto is something else.

Knowing that your grandfather died before your third birthday is different than actually having memories of the man and missing him. One is a personal tragedy, the other other is just some bad event you've heard about.

Yep and I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying continuity wasn't nailed down in the 1940s. Because of continuity after the fact, we might think we know what Superman knew, but we don't know because Siegel didn't spend a lot of time explaining that stuff before he was forced to leave.

A new continuity is coming together in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which is moving toward a powerful Superman that can remember a lot of things and the Superboy stories establishing a great deal of Kryptonian mythology. For that to happen, Clark has to start remembering more and more.

I will say that remembering things from our infancy is not unheard of. I'm no Tristram Shandy, but I have a few memories from before my first birthday. Granted my life as a baby was not that exciting--mostly just laying in my crib looking up at my parents, crawling on the grass outside and looking through the fence at another baby on the other side, and my parents taking me in the buggy and wheeling me down the sidewalk and me laughing every time the buggy went over a bump.

People who suffer trauma in their infancy can have strong memories of these events--and hurtling through the cosmos seems like something that might imprint on someone's consciousness. Then there's the animal world, where many creatures seem to retain a lot more information from their birth than we do. So an alien lifeform who remembers how he came to Earth and where he came from isn't that far-fetched.

[Primal Slayer]

I rather have them around then a glorified Zor/Lara who live on via holographic technology....

Having them see Clark grow up to be Superman, get married, have a child is fine. Should they both last long past that? Probably not.

[Jon Clark]

I guess the difference is that I can nothing supporting Superman knowing about Krypton and especially nothing that he mourned it prior to 1948. Therefore I assume he didn't know.

You are assuming that without reference to his being totally in the dark he must have memories of some kind.