A better look at the new Superman: July solicits

[Auguste Dupin]

I agree. I mean, it's one major problem with the character not only in the New52, but even historically speaking.


I agree once again. That's why I am interested in seeing Supes' new dynamics in approaching life.
You have involuntarily confirmed what I said some posts ago, when I mentioned that getting rid of Clark would resolve several problems. The glasses are one of those :-D

-That's what you get when your character is a 70 year old corporate figure.

-Well, at the very least, it would create an interesting dynamic for a while. But it also creates its own issues. For instance: how can Superman have a job? And if he can't, how can he live in a city? There's not necessarily impossible to find answers , but y'know, with new dynamics comes new questions to answer. And you know how much comics fans like novelty.

[Superlad93]

I don't want to seem the heretic here, but this is Maggin's thoughts, and only Maggin's. Even if I think that some of his Superman stories are the most important ever, and I take his opinion in great consideration, I don't consider it a dogma.

Never did I say that. I bring up Maggin and this whole notion simply because it's what I subscribe to and what I think. Just like you've presented the notion that he might not need Clark and based it off what you feel. I've done the same with this. Just food for thought more than any "think this or you're wrong" idea.

You say that "if done right Clark being gone is like Superman watching the love of his life die while he stands powerless IMO", and I agree, but nobody prevents anyone from saying that "if done right Clark being gone is like Superman accepting a whole new, modern, sophisticated way to live and approach people". The key is "if done right", not "the Clark ID MUST be kept at all costs" IMHO. I mean, in "Whatever happened.." Moore even openly suggested that the world could perfectly survive without Superman at all.

Sure. Nowhere did I say that you're take wasn't valid or was in anyway wrong. I was arguing Clark's right to life and importance as I see it. Just as you are arguing how he may be ultimately without much of a point. I for one think what I have present gives Clark a pretty good case for life, and a point to his being in the myth. If you don't agree that's perfectly fine. I thank you for reading my comment regardless.

[Cypher]

I always found it funny people want Clark Kent to be "normal".

Clark Kent was never normal. Usually hard working and mysterious, under Siegels pen, George Reeves interpretation, and PC.

If he wasnt that, he was portrayed as intentionally having an act which could be quite humorous. Siegel managed to do both. Turning Clark Kent into a "normal" guy never did anything for him. New52 doesnt have any of these aspects. He's neither "on the job" nor is he having a good time in his act. Its just boring. The dynamic of Clark acting like a wimp was that it negatively impacted his relationship with Lois in the old stories. And as Superman he didnt really want a relationship with her.

Maybe this bore of Clark is why people are for getting rid of his identity.

[Myskin]

-That's what you get when your character is a 70 year old corporate figure.

I definitely agree.

Well, at the very least, it would create an interesting dynamic for a while. But it also creates its own issues. For instance: how can Superman have a job? And if he can't, how can he live in a city? There's not necessarily impossible to find answers , but y'know, with new dynamics comes new questions to answer. And you know how much comics fans like novelty.

You have come up with a very interesting point. But you know what? Let's forget for one moment that they will probably revert back to the usual Clark/Superman thing sooner or later. I agree, they will have to come up with something, but you know what would give me hope? The fact that A- It would basically be a reinvention of Superman, which would necessarily take into account all the aspects of the new status quo (if the writers are clever, of course!) B- Relying on tradition would be impossible. That's VERY important IMHO. Let's face it, the glasses don't make sense, they are simply kept out of tradition. But if they discover new ways for Clark to preserve a private life as a common citizen, they MUST be convincing (Clark as a fireman whom George Taylor can't recognize ISN'T convincing, for example).

[Myskin]

Never did I say that. I bring up Maggin and this whole notion simply because it's what I subscribe to and what I think. Just like you've presented the notion that he might not need Clark and based it off what you feel. I've done the same with this. Just food for thought more than any "think this or you're wrong" idea.



Sure. Nowhere did I say that you're take wasn't valid or was in anyway wrong. I was arguing Clark's right to life and importance as I see it. Just as you are arguing how he may be ultimately without much of a point. I for one think what I have present gives Clark a pretty good case for life, and a point to his being in the myth. If you don't agree that's perfectly fine. I thank you for reading my comment regardless.

Maybe my posts may have seemed involuntarily polemical, I apologize ;-D
I am simply saying that I am approaching this storyline with a very open mind and, if done convincingly, I wouldn't be against it being a new foundation for the Superman mythos.

[Ascended]

Elliot S. Maggin put it the best when he said "Superman is in love with Clark". Superman is just head over heels for the idea of Clark Kent. His short comings, problems, weaknesses, and over all average nature. Clark is Superman's free expression. He's where he can "let it all hang". He's where he can try to make a difference using the same tools we have (showing us that it can be done). If you subscribe to the "Clark is the mask" idea (at least to some complicity) then I'd like to say that I think Superman actually finds most of his joy as just Clark. Keeping up with all of the things that would matter to Clark Kent the human but would be nearly worthless to Superman. He's built a "character" that has taken on shape and life of it's own just like how Siegel and Shuster made a character that took on a life of it's own. But the tragedy at the end of this little tale is that Clark Kent has to eventually die. He is only human after all. Superman must know that day is fast approaching and it must break his heart. It's like Lois eventually dying.

That dramatized explanation is pretty much me saying that Clark Kent is more than just a mask, but he's also more than just Superman (if that makes sense). He's a member of the cast same as Jim, Lois, and Perry. I feel that has been lost over the years and with the "Clark is who I am" approach. Because while that is true, don't get me wrong. Superman was in fact raised by great people and he's a farmer's son from Kansas. I think the creation of the person of Clark has lost it's spark and quite frankly it's oddness that makes it so compelling to think about and read.

The loss of Clark Kent should be less of "oh no my ID is blown" and more "oh god, you've just killed Clark Kent". So to address notions of just keeping Clark gone? I can see where that logic is coming from given he is no longer a character. But if done right, Clark being gone is like Superman watching the love of his life die while he stands powerless IMO.

I agree with this.

I think for the short term (which could be as much as several years) the idea of a Superman without a secret identity is something worth exploring, and something we've rarely seen. I'm curious about how it would affect the character and the mythos, and if that is indeed what happens, I'll be reading with interest.

But when push comes to shove, the Clark Kent persona is far more important for Superman than it is most other characters. For a lot of superheroes, the secret ID is a way for them to interact with regular people and do regular person things. Its an excuse to have downtime. And its been proven that its not an absolute must for the superhero genre to work. Hell, most of Marvel's big names dont bother with a secret ID at all anymore, and it hasnt hurt those characters.

Superman however, is different. Clark Kent is more than just Superman pretending to be a civilian; Clark is a narrative tool that exposes a whole new aspect of who Superman is, and without the secret identity we end up losing most of the character's humanistic elements. Not just in the supporting cast and Superman's interactions with them, but with the title character himself. Superman is not human. He emotes like a human (what makes us sad or angry makes Superman sad and angry) and has human (well, American Midwest) values, but his brain and biology are vastly different. He thinks differently than we do, he perceives things differently than we do, and to bridge the gap between the alien god and the human champion, we need Clark Kent.

Clark Kent is basically the Doctor's companion on Doctor Who. The Doctor is a strange and unknowable alien who, despite sharing many attributes with humanity, is still well and truly unknowable to us. His companions; regular, everyday people, are what allow us to see inside the Doctor's head, they let us see his humanity, and allow us to form emotional connections with him.

I find it funny every single person whos prominently for ~2011 Superman has gotten banned.

Well, not everyone, as you're still here and I'm quite sure there are others who preferred the older continuity (blacksun as well, most likely). I think its not a "war on nostalgia" so much as posters who cant keep things civil get hit with the ban hammer, and those just happened to be fans of pre-Flashpoint. Dont make it out like those people are being persecuted for their beliefs. You break the forum rules by being a dick, you get banned. Simple as that.

[Auguste Dupin]

You have come up with a very interesting point. But you know what? Let's forget for one moment that they will probably revert back to the usual Clark/Superman thing sooner or later. I agree, they will have to come up with something, but you know what would give me hope? The fact that A- It would basically be a reinvention of Superman, which would necessarily take into account all the aspects of the new status quo (if the writers are clever, of course!) B- Relying on tradition would be impossible. That's VERY important IMHO. Let's face it, the glasses don't make sense, they are simply kept out of tradition. But if they discover new ways for Clark to preserve a private life as a common citizen, they MUST be convincing (Clark as a fireman whom George Taylor can't recognize ISN'T convincing, for example).

Well, I guess that if you accept that the glasses prevent people from recognising Clark Kent as Superman, you have to accept that these same people won't recognise Clark if he doesn't have them. But of course, it relies of accepting point A, when we all know point A doesn't really make sense.
But yeah, what would be interesting about finding answers from these new questions is that they would be new answers. Does he have a secret ID? If yes, how does it work? Is he having a mask? If no, how does he manage to have a place to live? Is he having a job of some sort as Superman (or at least, as that guy every one knows is Superman)? Does the city lend him a place to stay because they know his presence makes the city safe (but away enough from other people's habitations so that he doesn't endanger them?)?
I mean, even if they do get back to the classic formula, these questions can be explored if the idea stays around long enough.

[Superlad93]

Maybe my posts may have seemed involuntarily polemical, I apologize ;-D
I am simply saying that I am approaching this storyline with a very open mind and, if done convincingly, I wouldn't be against it being a new foundation for the Superman mythos.

No you're fine. I'm coming at this story with a very open mind myself. My views don't have to line up with the work for me to enjoy it. This is proven with Pak's Superman. I love the character even if he's not how I personally see and ideal Superman. The way I see Clark Kent hasn't been used in some time and yet I'm still very much ok with the stories. If I step away from my comfort zone I can find new and interesting ways of looking at the character.

So yes I'd say I'm more than down for this coming story.

[Auguste Dupin]

Superman however, is different. Clark Kent is more than just Superman pretending to be a civilian; Clark is a narrative tool that exposes a whole new aspect of who Superman is, and without the secret identity we end up losing most of the character's humanistic elements. Not just in the supporting cast and Superman's interactions with them, but with the title character himself. Superman is not human. He emotes like a human (what makes us sad or angry makes Superman sad and angry) and has human (well, American Midwest) values, but his brain and biology are vastly different. He thinks differently than we do, he perceives things differently than we do, and to bridge the gap between the alien god and the human champion, we need Clark Kent.

I think the argument Myskin (and myself to a lesser extend) is making is that it would be interesting to have Clark try to find a way to keep these humanistic elements while the cat still out of the bag. In a way, it's less about Superman giving up on Clark and more about finding a way to keep him around, even without being able to pretend he's not Superman. To reinvent himself, so to speak. At least, that's how I see it.
And now I remember all of Yang's talk about exploring Superman as an immigrant figure, and I think his approach has a lot of potential in such a context, where Clark would have to rethink his entire way of life.

[Myskin]

Well, I guess that if you accept that the glasses prevent people from recognising Clark Kent as Superman, you have to accept that these same people won't recognise Clark if he doesn't have them. But of course, it relies of accepting point A, when we all know point A doesn't really make sense.
But yeah, what would be interesting about finding answers from these new questions is that they would be new answers. Does he have a secret ID? If yes, how does it work? Is he having a mask? If no, how does he manage to have a place to live? Is he having a job of some sort as Superman (or at least, as that guy every one knows is Superman)? Does the city lend him a place to stay because they know his presence makes the city safe (but away enough from other people's habitations so that he doesn't endanger them?)?
I mean, even if they do get back to the classic formula, these questions can be explored if the idea stays around long enough.

Look, I am simply speculating on this point, but I don't think that in the storyline "being among common people" and "being Superman" will be necessarily in contrast one with another.
Let's forget for one moment the ubervillains, space pirates, aliens, and so on. If Clark will be outed and the storyline will be focused on real-life evils (corrupt politicians, for example) I can imagine Clark as a super-activist who dedicates every moment of his life to being among common people and defending them. As some kind of super-Martin Luther King, or... Sorry, I can't came up with really convincing examples but I hope I made myself clear. The image with Superman in chains I have seen some days ago is more than eloquent. I think that if they do it in a convincing way they could REALLY rebuild Superman convincingly and provide new foundations for the character (something which even Morrison wasn't able to do IMHO). Without classical Clark Kent AND in a coeherent way. I mean, if they have the guts and the skills we are facing a historical occasion here.

[Myskin]

I think the argument Myskin (and myself to a lesser extend) is making is that it would be interesting to have Clark try to find a way to keep these humanistic elements while the cat still out of the bag. In a way, it's less about Superman giving up on Clark and more about finding a way to keep him around, even without being able to pretend he's not Superman. To reinvent himself, so to speak. At least, that's how I see it.

I add that "Superman renouncing his Clark Kent ID" and "Superman renouncing his humanity" are not consequential.

[Auguste Dupin]

]Look, I am simply speculating on this point, but I don't think that in the storyline "being among common people" and "being Superman" will be necessarily in contrast one with another.[/B]
Let's forget for one moment the ubervillains, space pirates, aliens, and so on. If Clark will be outed and the storyline will be focused on real-life evils (corrupt politicians, for example) I can imagine Clark as a super-activist who dedicates every moment of his life to being among common people and defending them. As some kind of super-Martin Luther King, or... Sorry, I can't came up with really convincing examples but I hope I made myself clear. The image with Superman in chains I have seen some days ago is more than eloquent. I think that if they do it in a convincing way they could REALLY rebuild Superman convincingly and provide new foundations for the character (something which even Morrison wasn't able to do IMHO). Without classical Clark Kent AND in a coeherent way. I mean, if they have the guts and the skills we are facing a historical occasion here.

At the very least, that would be my conclusion if I was to write this story.
The way I see it, without the separation between Clark and Superman, then his "Superman" persona ends up having elements of both. So, yeah, a guy who would be part Martin Luther King, part action hero, fighting both ubervillains and real life evils. A working class hero.
It could be pretty neat, indeed. That was more or less what I was trying to get at myself.

[Superlad93]

I think the argument Myskin (and myself to a lesser extend) is making is that it would be interesting to have Clark try to find a way to keep these humanistic elements while the cat still out of the bag. In a way, it's less about Superman giving up on Clark and more about finding a way to keep him around, even without being able to pretend he's not Superman. To reinvent himself, so to speak.

This is pretty much ideal.

But it it's a trade off. You give up the mystique of Superman. The same mystique that Santa, Doc Savage, the Doctor, and other larger than life characters have. The are benevolent, approachable, and almost too simple at first glace. But have this greater depth and slyness to the character and concept (I'm speaking of Doc and the Doctor at this point). You don't need to be fully in the heads. What you think you know about them is almost good enough for you. That goes along with the allure and promise of much greater depth and spontaneity to come. Getting into Superman's head (and the heads of the characters I said) in such a direct manner seems too cut and dry IMO. The indirect methods that allow the character to never stop their forward momentum/reason for being/action (delivering presents, going on crazy space adventures in a box, going on adventures around the world) but still unfold as a character. Still remain an almost force of nature but still very much a character (meaning still keeping their humanity).

But most importantly you also miss out on the completely unique and almost schizophrenic nature of the dual identity of Superman and his dreamed up mild mannered Adam aka Clark Kent. Rich with mythological parallels and the study of the human mind as Superman himself studies it. Clark is almost autonomous in my mind. Superman has crafted him so perfectly and convincingly that he basically "writes himself" so to speak (that's meta on a few levels ). He must have Clark act in a manner that makes sense for the character up to that point. I think there is just so much there that it's shame to let it go to waste.

So yes I think it's a trade off. I have no doubt that you could get a cohesive and strong character without Clark but I just think with the dynamic it's more fun and interesting. But that's just me and my particular view of the dynamic.

[Myskin]

At the very least, that would be my conclusion if I was to write this story.
The way I see it, without the separation between Clark and Superman, then his "Superman" persona ends up having elements of both. So, yeah, a guy who would be part Martin Luther King, part action hero, fighting both ubervillains and real life evils. A working class hero.
It could be pretty neat, indeed. That was more or less what I was trying to get at myself.

We are definitely on the same page here
stock-photo-9933298-thumbs-up-france.jpg

[Myskin]

This is pretty much ideal.

But it it's a trade off. You give up the mystique of Superman.

Look, we don't know. I mean, the fact that they never succeeded in rebuilding him in a convincing way doesn't mean that it can't be done. Or that a new, evocative mystique can't be created. I can even say that the failures of the past may depend on DC not being daring enough (which doesn't imply that it will be daring this time).
And, as I often said in previous threads on this subject, the character as we know him right now has too many weak points which IMHO don't work anymore. And not because of the New52, but because IMHO there wasn't enough critical thinking on the character in the latest I don't know, 30-40 years to make him work convincingly