Divergence 1: Exposed (FCBD) SPOILERS

[dumbduck]

Whoops, didnt' see this new thread. My thoughts copied: Not much more to the preview than we already were privy to beforehand, but liked what I read. Look forward to June. The back and forth with Jimmy has me confident that, while he's clearly annoyed with his new normal, the book will have some wit and humor to it.

Also, Clark's analogy about his powers, that he feels like he's being covered with a piece of plastic, tells me that not even he knows why his powers are recharging so slowly. I'm guessing that rules out Convergence having anything to do with it, as opposed to a planned mystery being developed in the Super books themselves.

spoilers:

spoiler spoilerman

end of spoilers

Also, Romita was in tune. Look at Jimmy's face when he said it.

I'm really looking forward to reading Yang now. I hope Lois had to reveal the secret for Clark's security or some other conspiracy.

[dumbduck]

The way I see it is this: He's Clark Kent. If he lost the secret ID. He's still Clark Kent.

I hope this story is not some morals fairy tale like Immortal Beloved. I hope Pak, Yang and co give it an honest shot. It may all go back to status quo, but Clark has to see that he can live like this.

I'm tired of Superman losing his humanity for varied reasons. I want Clark to win sometimes. I hope he sees that he wont become a murderous dicator if he's forced to live like this.

[AwesomeUsername]

I liked the story. I'm interested to see how this plays out. In the past we kept having those Silver Age covers where Superman's identity would often be revealed under crazy circumstances. Now we actually get to read a story about it. Although I wonder why would Clark stay at motels and not in his Fortress. I suppose because of his lower power levels, so he needs to be close to where the action is or an emergency might show up.

The way I see it is this: He's Clark Kent. If he lost the secret ID. He's still Clark Kent.

Clark Kent, Superman. He's still the guy (yes, this just gives me the excuse to post this brilliant picture from AC #41 that Kuder posted the other day).

[akmal154]

i wonder if he will get his secret identity back after this... but that head clap... Most. Epic. Fight. EVER.

[Lax]

How did Lois "mess things up" for Clark? I keep hearing about how the world is better off now that Superman can be held accountable? According to Yang and several other optimistic voices in favor of this development, Clark should be grateful that his friend helped him to finally become a true hero -- a hero he never could have been with that pesky unethical secret identity darkening his sterling reputation as a symbol of truth and justice.

The world will finally be able to trust Superman because they know everything about him. If Clark is being short with Lois now, well that's just him struggling with embracing his better angels. He'll see the light eventually: the truth has set him free. For that reason, Lois is the real hero here, and I hope Clark apologizes and fixes things with her soon. I'd hate for him to be a bad sport this entire storyline.

Or, I guess, maybe Yang did write Lois as being rash and a bit unethical. She really didn't think through the consequences of her decision because her lack of closeness to Clark and her knee-jerk need to print any truth she discovers overwhelmed her good sense. I bet she didn't give Clark, who we know would have done the right thing, the chance to either do the deed himself or present a really good case against an expose.

It really could go both ways, couldn't it? No, wait, probably not. I think this kind of storyline is the kind where there is going to be a right side and wrong side. There's the way things should be and the way things shouldn't be. I'm pretty sure we can all guess which character is likely to look like she's on the wrong side.

I know you're being facetious but this is all true.

Agreed.

That and a writer portraying a character as right/wrong doesn't necessarily make it true.

[Myskin]

Well, that was good.
I mean, it's just a beginning, but I liked it. What surprised me the most isn't the character development, but the setting and the tone. It's very "urban", much more than any Superman story in recent years. Maybe it's because of Romita jr, but I sensed a Nocenti 's Daredevil vibe here and there.

[Myskin]

By the way - Spoilers about the JL story in Divergence
spoilers:

In one of the glimpses of the League's future, we see Clark erased from existence by the Anti-Monitor

end of spoilers
I wonder if that's the way they will put the genie back in the bottle, with the umpteenth Superman reboot. I hope they won't. I mean, in Divergence, maybe for the first time ever, Jimmy Olsen makes sense as a character.

[Auguste Dupin]

On a smaller note, I kinda wonder what makes Clark goes from "hiding his features as much as possible" to " walks around wearing his emblem on his shirt all the time". I mean, we don't even know if the costume we see on that preview is the T shirt or not. So, is it somekind of statement? the way he chooses not to hide anymore? Does he decide that, instead of hiding, he should proudly disclaim who he is?

[manofsteel1979]

I liked the story. I'm interested to see how this plays out. In the past we kept having those Silver Age covers where Superman's identity would often be revealed under crazy circumstances. Now we actually get to read a story about it. Although I wonder why would Clark stay at motels and not in his Fortress. I suppose because of his lower power levels, so he needs to be close to where the action is or an emergency might show up.



Clark Kent, Superman. He's still the guy (yes, this just gives me the excuse to post this brilliant picture from AC #41 that Kuder posted the other day).

Wait...that looks like he has his regular suit back there. Unless that is some flashback scene, is it possible that the tshirt and jeans look may actually BE his new "clark kent" look, I mean as his casual clothes when he isn't doing regular Superman business. So maybe he has a sort of dual identity still.

Tshirt and jeans look: Clark Kent, Superman of the people?

Kryptonian suit: Kal-El , Galactic protector?

I mean, yes the world will know it's the same guy, but different jobs and scale of feats may require different "uniforms".

[Deniz Camp]

Well, that was good.
I mean, it's just a beginning, but I liked it. What surprised me the most isn't the character development, but the setting and the tone. It's very "urban", much more than any Superman story in recent years.

Agreed. I'd say this was a 'solid' start.

Rather than urban - which comes from the art more than anything, in my mind - what I'd say is that it's a very human, very character driven run. Everything here is naturalistic, grounded, real. Even Morrison's Superman wasn't that -- it was filled with his usual bombast and energy and sprinkled liberally with sci-fi stuff.

This is very straightforward. I got a strong sense of the characters here, of where they were and what they were feeling, and I liked them all. You can see Lois kind of desperate to fix things with Clark, and it's heartbreaking. We've all been there, the futile gesture, the hope that it is the first step to making things okay between you.

Just very solid and characterful. I dug.

[Deniz Camp]

I think things are more complicated than that, both in the real world and here. Having the moral right to do something doesn't make it the right thing in a context of a friendship. Apologizing for the impact of something you did on another person is what it means to have empathy. And holding these kinds of useless, prideful lines when you see a friend is suffering and you see your relationship withering is unrealistic and would be, in my opinion, pretty stupid.

[misslane]

I think things are more complicated than that, both in the real world and here. Having the moral right to do something doesn't make it the right thing in a context of a friendship. Apologizing for the impact of something you did on another person is what it means to have empathy. And holding these kinds of useless, prideful lines when you see a friend is suffering and you see your relationship withering is unrealistic and would be, in my opinion, pretty stupid.

Right, okay then. So why isn't the scene emphasizing how hurt Lois is that her best friend lied to her and may have hypocritically accused her of having a lack of journalistic integrity in the past during a time he was writing stories about himself? If the relationship is withering because Clark lied and because Clark is butthurt because his friend did the right thing, then he's just being a jerk. There's no reason for Lois to apologize to a liar, a hypocrite, and a jerk.

[Blue Light]

Also, people seem to be glossing over Lois saying, "I should've found another way." That line really says to me that there was more to her revealing the secret than just a story. I think if anyone's in danger of looking bad here, it's Clark since Lois' reason may have been too understandable.

[Myskin]

Right, okay then. So why isn't the scene emphasizing how hurt Lois is that her best friend lied to her and may have hypocritically accused her of having a lack of journalistic integrity in the past during a time he was writing stories about himself? If the relationship is withering because Clark lied and because Clark is butthurt because his friend did the right thing, then he's just being a jerk. There's no reason for Lois to apologize to a liar, a hypocrite, and a jerk.

Look at this:
Lying=jerk

This relation hasn't absolute value in real life. Well, it doesn't have absolute value in sophisticated comics based on credible human relationships, either.
People may have good reason to lie, and other people may have good reason to expose them without necessarily hating them. The mere concept of "doing the right thing" is complicated. The only people who may have sincerely believed in such dichotomous human relationships are Steve Ditko and Ayn Rand. And I seriously doubt that Ayn Rand was ever sincere.

[Flash Gordon]

Right, okay then. So why isn't the scene emphasizing how hurt Lois is that her best friend lied to her and may have hypocritically accused her of having a lack of journalistic integrity in the past during a time he was writing stories about himself? If the relationship is withering because Clark lied and because Clark is butthurt because his friend did the right thing, then he's just being a jerk. There's no reason for Lois to apologize to a liar, a hypocrite, and a jerk.

Maybe cause she kind of just destroyed his life without even a heads up first?