The dead parents poll

[Jim Kelly]

I don't have any real strong opinions on the rest except I'm tired of the cliched dead parents.

Was it a cliché in 1938? I guess the motif of the orphaned hero was a staple of legends going back to ancient times. Yet, in the 1930s, dead parents were more common in reality, so it wasn't a cliché. And the Kents were almost always elderly, thus their dying made sense because they had lived for so long. I guess it was SMALLVILLE that really pushed the idea that they were younger, but there a person had a greater likelihood of defenestration either by sliding door or glass coffee table.

While I prefer the Kents being dead, I could see a way to have them both dead and alive--the Schrödinger's Kents option. They both exist and don't exist through quantum entanglement. They die, but then Clark arranges it so they are also still alive, because he can't let them go. It's happened before.

[The Darknight Detective]

Was it a cliché in 1938?

Is it really a cliché now? For that to be the case, it would mean, not just a majority, but the vast majority of superhero parents had kicked the bucket.

[Tzigone]

Is it really a cliché now? For that to be the case, it would mean, not just a majority, but the vast majority of superhero parents had kicked the bucket.

I'm not sure it would mean that - cliché is just defined as overused and unoriginal. It does not require the vast majority or even majority. So just being dead, to me, would not be a cliché/trope (at least, for adults - the orphan can be one), but having them murdered (or revealed as previously murdered) to move the hero along the story or establish villain credentials would be.

[The Darknight Detective]

I'm not sure it would mean that - cliché is just defined as overused and unoriginal. It does not require the vast majority or even majority.

But having just about every superhero's parents alive and kicking (as was the case years ago) could also be overused and unoriginal, too.

[MajorHoy]

. . . And the Kents were almost always elderly, thus their dying made sense because they had lived for so long. I guess it was SMALLVILLE that really pushed the idea that they were younger, . . .

Actually, a long time ago, back in the pre-CoIE period (1968), there was a story in Superboy #168 where the Kents were de-aged somewhat and stayed that way.

[The Darknight Detective]

Actually, a long time ago, back in the pre-CoIE period (1968), there was a story in Superboy #168 where the Kents were de-aged somewhat and stayed that way.

Yeah, they were early middle-aged looking when I was growing up.

[Tzigone]

But having just about every superhero's parents alive and kicking (as was the case years ago) could also be overused and unoriginal, too.

Not really. That's like saying having just about every male hero wear trousers instead of skirts is overused and unoriginal. It's by far the most common state and even a default assumption (for people that age - 20s, usually, for earlier -created heroes) and typically not a driver of plots. It's just "ordinary" background. It's the same way a hero being independently wealthy so they don't have a job getting in the way of being a hero is a trope, but a hero holding down a job to pay the bills isn't - even in eras when more heroes hold jobs than don't. And, of course, plot-forwarding jobs (or love interest jobs - so many reporters) can be tropes/cliches, too. I definitely maintain journalist girlfriend is one at this point.

[The Darknight Detective]

Not really. That's like saying having just about every male hero wear trousers instead of skirts is overused and unoriginal.

But in the real world, every (just about ) man wears trousers, while at least 10% of young adults have a deceased parent.

[Jim Kelly]

Yeah, they were early middle-aged looking when I was growing up.

Yes, this is why I said "almost always." They were white-haired and elderly until 1968. Then when John Byrne took over they were white-haired and elderly again. After Byrne, they soon metamorphosed into various stages of development.

It's sad that nobody has read my "All-Planets" topic on the Superman forum--well, it's a very long thread, stretching over many years, so I can't blame you. I explained on there how Jolax of Thraxx arranged it so the Kents would become younger. And they were quite young for awhile, but through the 1970s into the early 1980s, they aged up. So if we assume they looked in their mid-thirties in 1968 then in 1980 they looked around fifty--while Clark remained about the same age (sixteen).

In SUPERBOY 145 (March 1968)--"The Fantastic Faces"--Clark made it so other elderly people in Smallville also aged at the same time and it would seem that a passing comet had caused this. Logic suggests that these people also rapidly lost their youth.

In reality, Jolax rejuvenated the Kents because his viewership didn't like Superboy's parents being so old. For the people of Thraxx, in another dimension, "The Superboy of Earth" is a Galaxo Movie Studio production of an Opti-Screen Show that they watch on their giant wall screens. Everyone there believes it's fiction and that the characters are played by actors. They don't know it's a reality show.

One can assume that all the changes in Superman continuity are due to Jolax introducing changes to the reality. Clark never catches on that his world keeps changing for the sake of better Opti-Screen ratings.

[Zero Hunter]

A big part of them alway looking so elderly is that was how they looked back in those times and artists tended to draw them even more so. A 50 year old these days looks radically different than a 50 year old 50 years ago especially woman. If you were introducing the Kents today they would look nothing like they did back in old days. They would look much younger and more vital.

[The Darknight Detective]

A big part of them alway looking so elderly is that was how they looked back in those times and artists tended to draw them even more so. A 50 year old these days looks radically different than a 50 year old 50 years ago especially woman. If you were introducing the Kents today they would look nothing like they did back in old days. They would look much younger and more vital.

True. I'm 58 years old and look quite a bit younger than actors my age or older from the Golden Age of Hollywood. It makes me laugh when the old coots in some of these movies and TV shows are sometimes a decade younger than myself. Having said that, my maternal grandfather could have passed for his early '40s when he was my age, though he was the exception for his generation.

[MajorHoy]

Not really. That's like saying having just about every male hero wear trousers instead of skirts is overused and unoriginal. It's by far the most common state and even a default assumption (for people that age - 20s, usually, for earlier -created heroes) and typically not a driver of plots. It's just "ordinary" background. It's the same way a hero being independently wealthy so they don't have a job getting in the way of being a hero is a trope, but a hero holding down a job to pay the bills isn't - even in eras when more heroes hold jobs than don't. And, of course, plot-forwarding jobs (or love interest jobs - so many reporters) can be tropes/cliches, too. I definitely maintain journalist girlfriend is one at this point.

I'm assuming the love-interest-journalist-girlfriend trope was just an easy way for writers to have the female more easily get into situations where the virile male hero would swoop in to save her. It also provided a way for the female character to be more active than, say, a cashier at Walmart.

[Tzigone]

I'm assuming the love-interest-journalist-girlfriend trope was just an easy way for writers to have the female more easily get into situations where the virile male hero would swoop in to save her. It also provided a way for the female character to be more active than, say, a cashier at Walmart.

I agree that's the motivation. It's just a trope because it's so widely used. They could try to come up with other ways for her to be rescued/active, instead of repeating the same one over and over. Of course, nowadays, she's much more likely to end up a hero herself, but that's rather off topic to the thread title.

I was just curious as to peoples preferences on parents that have been both alive and dead at the same points in a character's history, depending on continuity and from there it spread into those that weren't killed off in origin storylines but later, and whether people preferred them alive or dead and that's why I posted the poll.

I'm unsurprised by the currently even split on the Kents. Barry's parents are also within the range I expected. I am surprised so many like Vic's dad around so long. I had no real idea what to expect with Jack Drake, and expected most to be unfamiliar with Anita's dad.

On the whole, I like those who were killed originally to be dead and those who were alive originally to be alive. I tend to favor the norms in the era when I started reading a comic for the characters I most like. Which makes sense to me - if I didn't like the setup, then I wouldn't have continued reading. Except for the Kents, I started reading all of these with their earliest stories, so I tend towards that. A big change in direction or status quo (like killing off Tim's dad) is often a turn-off for me in a title (they often involve a character moving and us losing a supporting cast I love and they also often involve more angst or darkness, which isn't my thing, though certainly other things happen sometimes, too).

[MajorHoy]

Yeah, the Kents are a weird exception.

I started reading comic books before CoIE and thought the idea of making them still alive post-CoIE was a bit pretentious. But John Byrne wound up selling me on the benefits of them still being alive while Clark was an adult Superman.

[Tzigone]

Yeah, the Kents are a weird exception.

I started reading comic books before CoIE and thought the idea of making them still alive post-CoIE was a bit pretentious. But John Byrne wound up selling me on the benefits of them still being alive while Clark was an adult Superman.

I'm kinda the reverse. I liked them alive when first exposed to it, but have slowly soured on the idea. Part of it I have developed a strong distaste for the "farm values are noble values"/"rural superiority" that has been used too often. I don't agree with that (and I'm a rural person, myself, raised rurally). At his origin that was just a very common occupation during his childhood, and now it's morphed into something else - ties into the American mythology of the family/yeoman farmer as the most ideal citizen. As a connection to that, the movie introducing the "Clark pretends to be a simple farmboy" thing annoys me, too. Even in the Superboy era that made the Kent parents a thing, they weren't farmers, but now it's all rolled together. I love the idea of the Kents raising him well and helping him to become a great man, but sometimes it's extended to the "he'd be a despot without them" and "they raised him to be a superhero" sort to a degree that removes his own agency for what he became (admittedly, we can go back to deathbed dad in the golden age for that - at least I think it was still golden, not silver). So now I'm one the rare - one who doesn't like Clark having been Superboy, and likes Clark making the decision to become Superman as an adult, after his parents have passed. That is early golden age like, but at least part of that is coincidental - especially since I take the later route of preferring them not be farmers the bulk of Clark's childhood just to escape the aforementioned mentality .