Hateful Kents raising Clark, could it work?

[The World]

I mean really backwards spiteful sort of like two Archie Bunkers but ramped up a few notches. Despite all that Clark grows up to be the thoughtful and compassionate Superhero we know him to be yet still loves his parents none the less despite finding their viewpoints repugnant. I've been kind of mulling this idea over since I read Mastermen a couple of months back, when we saw a Superman that was raised in the midst of Nazi Germany at the very heart of it all even took part in the campaign to when the war for the Axis and created a sort of utopia but in hindsight was full of regret over what happened years later.

[Michael P]

It was sorta done in the Silver Age. A weird belt of cosmic rays or something created a "force duplicate" of baby Kal-El that landed on Earth, was adopted by two criminals, and became, in succession, "Super-Brat", "Super-Bully", and "Super-Menace".

[DochaDocha]

I mean really backwards spiteful sort of like two Archie Bunkers but ramped up a few notches. Despite all that Clark grows up to be the thoughtful and compassionate Superhero we know him to be yet still loves his parents none the less despite finding their viewpoints repugnant. I've been kind of mulling this idea over since I read Mastermen a couple of months back, when we saw a Superman that was raised in the midst of Nazi Germany at the very heart of it all even took part in the campaign to when the war for the Axis and created a sort of utopia but in hindsight was full of regret over what happened years later.

It could work, sure. Maybe Ma and Pa were terrible parents, but he got to see how parents were supposed to act, either by seeing other kids interact with their parents, or something silly like watching the Brady Bunch on TV, and therefore Clark decided he was going to be better than those awful Kents.

[Kuwagaton]

I'd like to see it handled in a less silly way. Like ma and pa aren't in the Klan, they just... don't really like black people, for example. I think there's nothing wrong with making an honest, human story about prejudice and flaw.

[The World]

I'd like to see it handled in a less silly way. Like ma and pa aren't in the Klan, they just... don't really like black people, for example. I think there's nothing wrong with making an honest, human story about prejudice and flaw.

Yeah this was more like what I had in mind. Old world values Kent's that end up raising the savior of humanity.

[Ascended]

I think it could absolutely work, but the real question would be (to my mind anyway) "is it a change that enriches Superman's character and overall narrative?"

We know from decades and decades of sociological study (and observation going back much further) that the home environment is not the end all, be all of child development. Lots of good kids come from bad homes, and vice versa. It wouldn't just be the Kents who define Clark, but the rest of the community and Clark's own genetic pre-dispositions. So Clark could totally become the man we know him to be despite the Kents being old world, close minded bigots. And having the enhanced senses that he does, Clark would likely be much more influenced by the world beyond his front door than the typical child.

But does it make Superman a more interesting character? I dont know, I'd have to see it in practice. It would certainly add a new spin on the character, and I think if Clark did take a lot of his life lessons not from the Kents but by hearing/observing the people who lived next door, down the street, across the town, on the other side of the State, ect., that could add a "raised by humanity itself" sort of concept to Superman and that has a certain charm to it.

I'd rather not see the Kents as KKK members who string puppies up by their toes in the back yard or anything, Ive no interest in seeing them monsters. But severely flawed? It might say something about how even imperfect people can bring about positive change.

All this said, I have a bit of an issue with the Kents being portrayed as perfectly wise and capable parents who rarely, if ever, made mistakes or found themselves at a loss with Clark. Its why I liked Kevin Costner's take so much in Man of Steel (excluding that idiotic death scene, which is acceptable only if we blame 5th dimensional influences for making everyone act like morons). Unlike most other versions, Costner's Kent found that good old fashioned common sense country wisdom wasnt enough. He was conflicted. He was smart enough to comprehend Clark's importance to the world, smart enough to know that Clark would require care and love and attentive parents, and found himself stuck between these two demands; preparing young Clark for the day he goes into the world but still trying to protect him from that world until he's ready. It was compelling on a conceptual level, even if people do take that comment about the bus too literally.

[Mutant God]

You mean like if the Kents are apart of that Westboro baptist group? If Superman was a fundamentalist and his arch enemy was still the scientific Lex Luthor lol

[The World]

You mean like if the Kents are apart of that Westboro baptist group? If Superman was a fundamentalist and his arch enemy was still the scientific Lex Luthor lol

Nah, traditional Supes but non traditional Kents.

[Mutant God]

Nah, traditional Supes but non traditional Kents.

Okay so the first part then, Westboro Baptist Kents?

[The World]

Okay so the first part then, Westboro Baptist Kents?

Eh I wasn't personally thinking of it such an zealous way. Not really part of an open hate group but more ass backwards in mindset. Vile but probably keeps it behind closed door. Tried to push it onto Clark but he rebukes it.

[Hypestyle]

depends.. the first "version" of the kents adopted him in what, 1915 or thereabouts, if you accept he was 25-ish by 1939. From there until 2015, we've had more than a handful of different waves of interpretations. A heavily flawed Jon and Martha could make for some interesting conflict, though it would be further contextualized with the exact timeframe being depicted.

[Francisco]

Remember the slap a jap covers from world war 2? I think that's Superman been raised by old fashioned prejudiced people yet turning out a hero even though a flawed one.

[Ascended]

Remember the slap a jap covers from world war 2? I think that's Superman been raised by old fashioned prejudiced people yet turning out a hero even though a flawed one.

You're not taking context into consideration. At the time those comics were published, Superman's actions were not deviant behavior; they were cultural norms. We look back now and recognize it for racism and bigotry, but at the time Superman was just doing his patriotic duty and warning America's youth about the dangers of the "evil Japs". He wasnt doing anything wrong by the standards of the time, and if those were values instilled in him by his parents, they wouldn't be seen as anything other than typical, normal Americans either.

[Lax]

I think it would depend on how one feels about the "nurture vs nature" question.

The Kents are usually showered with credit for how wonderfully Superman turned out to be as a person. If it's shown that Superman would turn out great no matter who raised him, as if due to his very nature, then one would have to accept that people can be naturally evil as well.

[Darth Kal-el]

I think it would diminish the Kent's role in forging Superman which has always been important. It does fall into nature verses nurture. I always liked the line from the Smallville finale when Jor-el said my genetics allow you to do what you can but Smallville made you who you are or something like that I am paraphrasing. Superman could still be a decent person and hero with bad Kent's but he wouldn't be the perfect super hero we know him as