Post-Reborn status of the Kents?

[DragonPiece]

One thing that we have seen so far is that Jurgens is trying to bring almost everything he can back so that is my only thought process on Martha at the least coming back to life.

[SuperCrab]

Both dead Pre-Superman.

The smaltz factor was getting way too high in Rebirth. Lets not add in grandparents, please. Reborn is hopefully going to be at least a small course correction, not doubling down on cheesiness.

[Jon Clark]

I was listening to Superman Returns this week on the ride home from work (have a CD of the novel). And just listening to the scenes with Clark and Martha after his arrival back on the farm made me ill. Superman should be less of a person who needs his parent's advice everytime he hits an obstacle and more of a guy who solves his own problems. Having Ma and Pa to advise him works great when he is Superboy and has no real social network to support him in costume (outside of the Legion). As an adult with a wife, League teammates, John Irons, etc he doesn't need to have his parents as well.

[bat39]

The one thing I find kind of disturbing in some of the responses is the notion that Superman becomes 'weaker' or 'less of a man' or 'cheesy' if his parents are still alive.

It almost seems to suggest that being an orphan is a source of strength and an empowering experience in and of itself! Which is sorta perverse if you really think about it...

Personally, I feel that if the Kents are alive, they don't have to be used all the time. If a writer doesn't want to use them much, they don't have to, really. The Kents could appear every issue during one arc, and not appear at all for the next couple of arcs. In fact, I'd much rather, given the current set-up, that the Kents (or Martha at any rate) be used sparingly...well, after the new continuity is fully settled in.

But for the record, I don't think Superman becomes any less 'super', or any less of a 'man' for that matter because his parents are still alive. Much like I don't think any of the millions of grown men and women out there who are fortunate to have their parents alive aren't any lesser for it (and hopefully, are in fact the better for it).

[Miles To Go]

Both dead Pre-Superman.

The smaltz factor was getting way too high in Rebirth. Lets not add in grandparents, please. Reborn is hopefully going to be at least a small course correction, not doubling down on cheesiness.

I love how you call strong family bonds with a wealth of positive storytelling potential "smaltz" and "cheesiness". Better than angst and edge anyday.

[Flash Gordon]

The one thing I find kind of disturbing in some of the responses is the notion that Superman becomes 'weaker' or 'less of a man' or 'cheesy' if his parents are still alive.

It almost seems to suggest that being an orphan is a source of strength and an empowering experience in and of itself! Which is sorta perverse if you really think about it...

Personally, I feel that if the Kents are alive, they don't have to be used all the time. If a writer doesn't want to use them much, they don't have to, really. The Kents could appear every issue during one arc, and not appear at all for the next couple of arcs. In fact, I'd much rather, given the current set-up, that the Kents (or Martha at any rate) be used sparingly...well, after the new continuity is fully settled in.

But for the record, I don't think Superman becomes any less 'super', or any less of a 'man' for that matter because his parents are still alive. Much like I don't think any of the millions of grown men and women out there who are fortunate to have their parents alive aren't any lesser for it (and hopefully, are in fact the better for it).

Superman always was an orphan, but the Kents being an older couple who pass on normally when Clark is a young man does not make him more of an orphan.

It'd a natural part of life.

[The World]

The one thing I find kind of disturbing in some of the responses is the notion that Superman becomes 'weaker' or 'less of a man' or 'cheesy' if his parents are still alive.

It almost seems to suggest that being an orphan is a source of strength and an empowering experience in and of itself! Which is sorta perverse if you really think about it...

Personally, I feel that if the Kents are alive, they don't have to be used all the time. If a writer doesn't want to use them much, they don't have to, really. The Kents could appear every issue during one arc, and not appear at all for the next couple of arcs. In fact, I'd much rather, given the current set-up, that the Kents (or Martha at any rate) be used sparingly...well, after the new continuity is fully settled in.

But for the record, I don't think Superman becomes any less 'super', or any less of a 'man' for that matter because his parents are still alive. Much like I don't think any of the millions of grown men and women out there who are fortunate to have their parents alive aren't any lesser for it (and hopefully, are in fact the better for it).

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. The death of the Kent's wasn't for Clark like it was for numerous other superheroes where the death of the parental figures is some momentous life changing experience. It was just a part of life, they were old and passed on, there was nothing he could do about it and he moved on to the next stage of his life.

Also I think the Kent's having a continued hand in his life shifted the way the writers and editors started viewing Superman. He went from being an accomplished and decorated superhero with years of experience under his belt in their eyes to being a "farm boy" who happen to have powers. Post-crisis Superman lacked the inner strength and confidence of his pre-crisis self and part of that was the shift from great superhero to farmboy.

Also post-crisis Superman was dissociative via the whole gangbuster incident so he's not a real example of someone being better for having his parents later in life.

[Chris24601]

What's interesting to me is that while a lot of the posters here are adamant that the Kents should both be dead pre-Superman, the "Jon and Martha are still both alive" choice currently beats the next three choices combined (19 to 7+7+4=18).

What that indicates is that this thread is clearly a case of the vocal minority vs. a silent majority.

[The World]

What's interesting to me is that while a lot of the posters here are adamant that the Kents should both be dead pre-Superman, the "Jon and Martha are still both alive" choice currently beats the next three choices combined (19 to 7+7+4=18).

What that indicates is that this thread is clearly a case of the vocal minority vs. a silent majority.

But is the opinion of the silent majority right? Between vague no true scotsman fallacies based around what it means to be human and verifiably false statements like "it made him happier" or "he was a better superhero for it" no explanation really explain how this made Superman better. Seems like the usual case of fixing something that wasn't broken, or as this board calls it "trying to fix Superman".

Edit: Also changing Superman so he's less like the johnny come latelies that followed him makes no sense either. If you want Superman to be less like Batman, Nightwing, or whoever then you change those characters not Superman.

[The World]

But for what it's worth living Kent's isn't a deal breaker for me, I didn't even vote because I don't feel strongly enough to choose any particular option. I stick by it because I feel it gave a stronger iteration of Superman and generally don't see anything wrong with it.

[Last Son of Krypton]

I wonder why the "it's tradition/that's how it should be" excuse doesn't apply to the Kents being dead.

[bat39]

Superman always was an orphan, but the Kents being an older couple who pass on normally when Clark is a young man does not make him more of an orphan.

It'd a natural part of life.

Agreed.

I'm responding more to the people who put forward the argument that the Kents need to be dead in order for Superman to be a fully realized hero (or a fully realized man for that matter).

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. The death of the Kent's wasn't for Clark like it was for numerous other superheroes where the death of the parental figures is some momentous life changing experience. It was just a part of life, they were old and passed on, there was nothing he could do about it and he moved on to the next stage of his life.

Also I think the Kent's having a continued hand in his life shifted the way the writers and editors started viewing Superman. He went from being an accomplished and decorated superhero with years of experience under his belt in their eyes to being a "farm boy" who happen to have powers. Post-crisis Superman lacked the inner strength and confidence of his pre-crisis self and part of that was the shift from great superhero to farmboy.

Also post-crisis Superman was dissociative via the whole gangbuster incident so he's not a real example of someone being better for having his parents later in life.

Well, there's no doubt that Superman was subjected to a lot of bad writing in the Post-COIE era (which influenced the New 52 reboot a lot), I think with the return of the Post-COIE Superman at least in a symbolic sense, there's an acknowledgement on the part of DC that the problem was writing, and not the status quo itself.

I wonder why the "it's tradition/that's how it should be" excuse doesn't apply to the Kents being dead.

No one is saying the "it's tradition/that's how it should be" excuse should apply to the Kents being alive either. The fact is that them being alive has certain merits which outweigh the 'benefits' of them being dead.

Its worth noting that them being dead was not even something that integral to Superman before COIE either. The first time the Kents were introduced, they were basically a plot device to explain how an alien infant grew up on earth (actually, that was already covered in the very first iteration of the origin - they were more a plot device to explain where the name 'Clark Kent' came from). They were hardly important characters, so their deaths didn't mean much. Then, with the Superboy stories, they became important supporting characters during Clark's childhood and teenage years. They were still dead in the present, but its not like that really contributed anything much to the stories themselves (as far as I know). Superman certainly spent a lot more time angsting over Krypton than he did over the deaths of his adoptive parents.

Then, with the 1986 reboot, Byrne made the Kents important characters in the Superman stories for the first time. And there's at least one interview where he claims it was to make up for retconning Superboy out of existence, which were the stories where the Kents used to be prominent players. And Byrne and subsequent writers made the Kents and the Smallville setting integral parts of the Superman mythos. Its worth noting that every adaptation of Superman since 1986 has made one or both of the Kent's not only important characters in Superman's backstory but even in his 'present-day' adventures.

Come to think of it, even when the Kents were dead in the New 52, it was made clear in-story that their deaths were part of the machinations of a 5th-dimensional foe and that the Kents being alive was the way things 'should have been'.

In a sense, I view the Kents being alive (or at least, having been alive well into Superman's career) as being a retcon nearly on par with the retcon that Alfred raised Bruce Wayne since childhood and is a father-figure to him.

[manofsteel1979]

I wonder why the "it's tradition/that's how it should be" excuse doesn't apply to the Kents being dead.

Well, to the uninitiated , one of the Kents being alive has been a concept that has existed in most non comics media since the 50's and the George Reeves show. Now, granted Ma Kent was only seen in the pilot, but it did establish she was alive when Clark Left Smallville , which carried over to the Donner film and pretty much every live action and animated version since. Many discover Supes through other media before comics, so to a majority of people Superman has at least one paternal figure in his life as an adult, if not both.

I mean think about how many aspects of Supes originated in other media. Perry and Jimmy, Kryptonite,flight. Alive Kent's is one such thing.

[Kuwagaton]

Edit: Also changing Superman so he's less like the johnny come latelies that followed him makes no sense either. If you want Superman to be less like Batman, Nightwing, or whoever then you change those characters not Superman.

I like the point bat39 made. Superman initially had little reflect if any on the deaths of the Kents, they were really just supporting Superboy characters. I'm a pretty big fan of the pirate treasure story, actually.

As for the other characters, well, they were defined by those losses so that's not changing. It's a little curious to me how some suggestions for handling Superman kind of imply that they want him treated more like Batman, but that's not a criticism of preference.

[Jon Clark]

The one thing I find kind of disturbing in some of the responses is the notion that Superman becomes 'weaker' or 'less of a man' or 'cheesy' if his parents are still alive.

It almost seems to suggest that being an orphan is a source of strength and an empowering experience in and of itself! Which is sorta perverse if you really think about it...

But it is true in a sense. Parents (at least ones like the traditional Kents) provide a safety net and a support system. And for the average Joe that's a good thing. I would never suggest that depriving a real person of their parents would be a good thing.

However when looking at a hero I see a lack of a support system as part of the creation process. Oliver Queen doesn't become Green Arrow if you leave him in Star City his whole life. It's being on the island without his riches and easy life that makes him develop his survival skills. Part of Dick Grayson's journey is developing the ability to operate without having Batman there to catch him if he falls. Spider-man isn't Spider-man if you have Aunt may or Uncle Ben there supporting him from the start (and that's with the burglar killing one of them as part of the story). And all of them would be happier as individuals if Ollie never went to the island, Dick stayed Bruce's partner well into adulthood, or Peter had the support of his "parent" in his early career.

Personally, I feel that if the Kents are alive, they don't have to be used all the time. If a writer doesn't want to use them much, they don't have to, really. The Kents could appear every issue during one arc, and not appear at all for the next couple of arcs. In fact, I'd much rather, given the current set-up, that the Kents (or Martha at any rate) be used sparingly...well, after the new continuity is fully settled in.

The problem is that Clark being Clark doesn't really benefit from the Kents if they aren't involved in his life. It's hard to picture the type of family bond we've been shown not including frequent Sunday dinners in Smallville or phone calls just to touch base ("Did Masie drop her calf yet? Jon doesn't want to miss the chance to name it. Oh, you saw that on the news. Trust me that giant robot looked more terrifying than it really was").

Trying to downplay the Kents results in either a scenario where Clark looks like he is estranged from them because they never appear, a situation where they might as well be dead for the impact they have on the story, or Clark treating them as a last resort where they only appear on panel when the drama is at it's highest.

But for the record, I don't think Superman becomes any less 'super', or any less of a 'man' for that matter because his parents are still alive. Much like I don't think any of the millions of grown men and women out there who are fortunate to have their parents alive aren't any lesser for it (and hopefully, are in fact the better for it).

From my perspective I just see a spectrum that runs from people who still are under the same roof as mom/dad to those who live in the same neighborhood to those that live miles apart (without super-speed filghts ) to those who are "orphaned". And along the same range people who are their own person to those who are still defined by their parents. And while they are all potentially grat people, I prefer Superman as one who is less defined in the present by his parents.