Does Superman actually gain anything from having a "normal" childhood?

[The World]

By that I mean moving the development of his powers in earnest into his late teens. Dumping the legion of superheroes from his back story. Basically giving him a more whitebread american upbringing?

[Sacred Knight]

Nope. Does more harm than good in the long run, actually. It adds nothing except ammo to play the "more Man than Super" idea into the ground, and removes really fun elements from his mythos. Even the original Byrne miniseries didn't have him "normal" for long. It still took away everything fun about his kid years, but at the very least he was invunerable at a young age and the progress was gradual from there. When they altered that in the 90s and actually made it that he was completely and totally normal till his 18th year, that to me was just adding more of a mistake onto an original mistake.

[vasir12]

I prefer him always being super, and gradually getting stronger. Superman: American Alien was very enjoyable playing with that.

[t hedge coke]

It gains things, it loses things. Just like any major change in a character's childhood and upbringing would.

[JackDaw]

It gains things, it loses things. Just like any major change in a character's childhood and upbringing would.

Of course, it does.

But surely most of us have a gut feeling whether or not the net effect is beneficial. My gut feeling is that giving him powers and adventures early on is an important part of the character. Certainly my reaction to making him completely normal till 18 is "not for me".

Deep down , I just think it's another one of those changes DC tend to make to Superman because they find it too difficult to find excellent writers to scribe really stories about the existing character.

[t hedge coke]

Of course, it does.

But surely most of us have a gut feeling whether or not the net effect is beneficial. My gut feeling is that giving him powers and adventures early on is an important part of the character. Certainly my reaction to making him completely normal till 18 is "not for me".

Deep down , I just think it's another one of those changes DC tend to make to Superman because they find it too difficult to find excellent writers to scribe really stories about the existing character.

I'm sure most of us have a gut feeling, sure. Mine is that there's things gained and lost in both versions. That is my gut feeling, and my considered judgment, both.

[JackDaw]

I'm sure most of us have a gut feeling, sure. Mine is that there's things gained and lost in both versions. That is my gut feeling, and my considered judgment, both.

And it exactly balances out??

Let's put it this way, Clark K having powers and adventures as a kid was an early and extended part of the mythos. It's path that the original creators favoured. And existence or not of those powers and adventures in childhood are bound to be a massive influence on personality. ( If we're supposed to believe it has no impact...then there is no point to making the change.)

So.. a big change...one for me, that makes me think "Is the resulting creation anything like the original??" Yes...we all know its still "Superman" in sense it's the licensed product put out by DC. But it's also different enough from earlier versions that a rational reader might love the earlier version, but not love the current version.

[JackDaw]

Not a change (giving Superman a "normal" childhood) I like...as I've put in previous posts.

But it's one that I can easily understand DC might feel almost compelled to make to fit in with modern comics. Two main reasons.

First, there's a need for any DC character to fit in with overall continuity of present DCU. Having a ten year old Clark Kent having full on super adventures may well not fit in with overall plan for all the DCU.

Second..if you want to make your story telling a bit more "credible" rather than utterly fantastic (in sense of not caring about credibility one iota)...you give immense story telling problems if you give Clark immense powers early on. Why didn't baby Clark seriously hurt his mum and dad if his physical powers were there from start? If he had loads of adventures around Smallville, why did nobody work out his secret id? And so on, and so forth.

[Doctor Bifrost]

I prefer him starting out relatively normal (although hard to hurt) and developing his powers over time. The idea of a toddler with no impulse control having immense superstrength, flight, and heat vision - or the Kents trying to raise such a child, and keep his powers a secret - just seems to require too much handwaving.

I remember reading those stories, and they involved such a level of luck, coincidence, and Smallvillites noticing nothing that, even when I was almost as young as Superbaby, I just rolled my eyes and thought - Eh. Whatever.

And the development of powers over time, and their impact on his growing up, creates its own narrative, and can be the source of good stories.

He can still be powerful enough by adolescence to be involved with the Legion. I'm not talking about turning a switch on when he turns 18.

[t hedge coke]

And it exactly balances out??

For me, it's not so much balancing out as that we've had both versions in different things, and variations, where I've liked each of them. I don't prefer one to the other and I'm glad we've seen both. I liked that the Legion flight ring, in the DCnU was Clark's first experience flying. I like it when he's Superboy and hangs out in the future with them in a full on super-suit. I like it when he places in track and plays basketball well before he has his powers, but plays himself off more as a goof when he gets them partly out of guilt that he might not have earned that, even. Toddler holding a tractor over his little head is awesome.

It's not a pointe assassine for me, either way, killing his Supermanicity. He could never have gotten powers and if it's a good story, or a good execution of concept, I wouldn't be bothered at all by it being wrapped into the icon of Superman. Come to Earth a teenager or adult. I prefer he come to Earth most times as a baby, but that's about as far as my concern goes.

[superduperman]

I hated the post-Crisis origin precisely for that reason. Of course I grew up weaker and less developed than everyone else so to some degree, there is a power fantasy element to it so maybe I'm biased. From a creative standpoint there certainly isn't anything gained from it. It always seemed odd that they would flash back to his childhood in the post-Crisis comics because what are you flashing back to? The fact that he did the same things every other kid did? I remember a story where Clark and Pete had to deal with a bully and Clark didn't have his powers yet so Pete took him on. What was the point of that? "Isn't it great that before the universe was rebooted he could have stopped this easily?"

What was worse was that this rule seemed to be universal and crossed over into every version in the nineties. And they went out of their way to remind you of it. Go back and watch the first (well, technically, second) episode of Superman TAS. They imply his powers are relatively new as a teenager. Why? It's a kids cartoon! As a kid I hated teenagers! Waiting until puberty to give him his powers doesn't make him any more relateable to that child audience. Who are you making this for? Even as a fan if you wanted to ignore this aspect of continuity, every other issue would remind you he didn't develop powers until puberty. Like they were trying to prove something. Going out of their way to distance themselves from the SA as much as possible. We get it, they did some stupid things in the fifties and sixties. Smallville was the first show to actually break this rule.

I get why they did this. No parent wants their kid to be stronger than they are (or shooting lasers out of their eyes) and they were on a big "realism" kick back then, but part of the appeal of Superman is that he got to have an ideal life. He's the anti-Batman. The kid every other kid wants to be. Seeing him have to deal with bullies he can't do anything about or breaking bones doesn't make him any more appealing. It just reminds kids of their own frustrations. I think a healthy compromise is to give him higher strength and invulnerability from day one and wait until he's older to give him the more "dangerous" powers. Of course all of this depends on how his powers actually work and how long it takes to absorb enough sunlight to develop them. If all he has to do is sit out in the sun for a few hours, he'll be throwing furniture around by two or three. One trip into town for the afternoon and he'll be flying home under his own power.

[Darkspellmaster]

I would say relatively normal would work for him. Powers come in slowly over a period of years as he matures. Maybe as a baby he has really good hearing or is hard to hurt, then as he gets older he can do various things. This way it's not like he's not living normally and the whole hand waving issue is taken care of.

[Sacred Knight]

Yeah, I don't need Superbaby or anything like that. But he should have a distinct lack of vulnerability from the get-go, and then things grow from there. By adolescence, 10 or so, he has enough to sustain him in adventures with the Legion. Natural flight (not counting the ring) being the last power to develop.

[Darkspellmaster]

Yeah, I don't need Superbaby or anything like that. But he should have a distinct lack of vulnerability from the get-go, and then things grow from there. By adolescence, 10 or so, he has enough to sustain him in adventures with the Legion. Natural flight (not counting the ring) being the last power to develop.

Yup, sort of gives him a more believable build because he's soaking in the sun for years, so probably as he grows his body changes based on how much sun he gets.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Well, I start from the fact that he's a freaking alien. As in a being that may look like us, but is NOT one of us. And he certainly is not a metahuman (the DC term for "mutant"). So from the start he should have some outstanding qualities. Yes, even as a baby.

Like Sacred Knight said, I guess it's all part of that "more man than super" CRAP, which also has been a "concept" severely overused. Or it could be laziness/ lack of creativity from the writers/ editors: a convenient plot device to not "complicate" things when telling stories of Superman's early years.

All in all, no, Kal has gained nothing by going with that approach.