Am I the only one?

[stephens2177]

People did complain. People still do complain. Not as much because its an easier fit because Batman has been raising foster children since Dick Grayson first came on the scene decades ago, though.

Exactly what meant to write in my last post

[Adekis]

Batman is a father and no one complains. Superman is a father and people complain.

People complain a lot.

Yeah I get your point in general and I'm still interested in adventure stories starring New 52 Superman, but especially on the topic of the different Supermen I see statements like "they could have done this story without that change" and it's not really fair because this story is that change, and something similar isn't necessarily "just as good." If the same or different creators "could have" but simply didn't want to, I'd argue that they technically "couldn't have," you know?

Fair enough.

With regards to having an adopted kid over a natural one: I don't think having a child completes any man or woman in or outside of marriage. But we never had an indication that they didn't want a natural child, and now know clearly that they did. So really, it's something good for them and I like a large measure of happiness for my favorite characters.

I don't think it's right, ethically speaking, to claim that a biological child makes you happier parents than an adopted one. In every way that matters, having an adopted kid is exactly the same as having a biological kid. However! Thematically, adoption is a massively important part of Superman's backstory, I'd even say it's the single most important thing about it. As a result, I'm quite bothered, not by the fact that Superman had a biological son, but by the fact that the writers had a perfectly good, brilliantly executed relationship with an adopted son who would have been easy to return to, and wasted it by giving Kal a biological son to fill the same role instead. In a lot of ways, it screams biological parenthood preferentialism to me, and I despise that, especially in the story of a man defined by his adoption.

[13th Superman]

I don't think it's right, ethically speaking, to claim that a biological child makes you happier parents than an adopted one. In every way that matters, having an adopted kid is exactly the same as having a biological kid. However! Thematically, adoption is a massively important part of Superman's backstory, I'd even say it's the single most important thing about it. As a result, I'm quite bothered, not by the fact that Superman had a biological son, but by the fact that the writers had a perfectly good, brilliantly executed relationship with an adopted son who would have been easy to return to, and wasted it by giving Kal a biological son to fill the same role instead. In a lot of ways, it screams biological parenthood preferentialism to me, and I despise that, especially in the story of a man defined by his adoption.

Thank you thank you thank you.

[Superlad93]

However! Thematically, adoption is a massively important part of Superman's backstory, I'd even say it's the single most important thing about it.

But then isn't the idea of bridging the gap between his old and new homes JUST as important? It's why Superman gets with Lois. Thematically speaking the idea of bridging the gap between worlds/balancing the two is the encapsulation of Clark Kent and Superman has been present even before the concrete idea that he was adopted was created. Half man and half "god" and the never ending conversation between them. That would be personified to a whole new level with a biological child with a human. In the same way that adopting a child is great thematically for Superman, so is him having a child with Lois Lane the human. It's even topical because of all of the first generation multicultural kids of immigrants who call the US home. What we have is literally a child of mixed "race" and culture who gets to live in the tomorrow that his father and mother broke their backs to build.

So I don't think you can discredit the idea in favor of thinking adoption the superior thematic way to go, because there are just as many extremely strong reasons present for a character like Jon to be here.

[Ascended]

Batman is a father and no one complains. Superman is a father and people complain.

Batman's always been a paternal father figure. A emotionally abusive one at times, certainly not an easy one to deal with, but one all the same.

Superman is a friendly loner and has been for the vast majority of his existence.

Plus this is something new, fans always complain about new things no matter what. As well as old things and things that never happened, things that did happen, and stuff that actually has no bearing on anything at all.

[MeloDet]

I mean they are different characters with different fans too no? Beyond everything it's perfectly valid to like one thing for one character and not like it for another...

[Flash Gordon]

Batman is a father and no one complains. Superman is a father and people complain.

Batman has literally been a father since 1940.

[hellacre]

But then isn't the idea of bridging the gap between his old and new homes JUST as important? It's why Superman gets with Lois. Thematically speaking the idea of bridging the gap between worlds/balancing the two is the encapsulation of Clark Kent and Superman has been present even before the concrete idea that he was adopted was created. Half man and half "god" and the never ending conversation between them. That would be personified to a whole new level with a biological child with a human. In the same way that adopting a child is great thematically for Superman, so is him having a child with Lois Lane the human. It's even topical because of all of the first generation multicultural kids of immigrants who call the US home. What we have is literally a child of mixed "race" and culture who gets to live in the tomorrow that his father and mother broke their backs to build.

So I don't think you can discredit the idea in favor of thinking adoption the superior thematic way to go, because there are just as many extremely strong reasons present for a character like Jon to be here.

Okay claiming that Jon is "mixed race" and somehow he is topical to me is really reaching. Superman hides. Superman looks caucasian and so does Jon. It's not like Jon looks like Raven ie looks obviously not pure human. What genuine trials has Jon to face like any child who is actually of mixed race in the world? Not that much. I would say he's going to school just fine and is he getting getting bullied or judged or having to deal with what real kids of color who have a white parent? These kids don't get to hide their skin or DNA like Jon is in their day to day like. Superman has never come out and owned who he is as Clark other than in Truth.

The day Superdad comes out and says who he is and owns his child is what he is to the world honestly...then and only then can we even compare this aspect. Plus Jon got his "human"side conveniently wiped away. That is another thing that makes me eye roll too. We didn't even get to see Clark and Lois even cope with the anxieties of having a sick child like real parents. Everything is just plunked on a platter for them. Where did they break their backs? You mean the ten years time hop that happened overnight? And they didn't break their backs more than anyone else. If someone says to me the Kents broke their backs I would agree. The narrative is just not there to make me feel these things.

And this is the problem for me with Jon too. He is just conveniently given to them despite even DC saying Clark and Lois could not have kids. Chris Kent could have fit in just as well and as others have said made more sense and Clark would have been able to do the same thing he is doing with Jon.

[13th Superman]

I loved this moment between Chris and Tim.

[Superlad93]

Okay claiming that Jon is "mixed race" and somehow he is topical to me is really reaching. Superman hides. Superman looks caucasian and so does Jon. It's not like Jon looks like Raven ie looks obviously not pure human.

Jon is literally half human and half Kryptonian. Race in itself is a social construct, and only in part based of of skin color or facial structure. Did you several "races" in the American census have swapped over the years? The last I checked Hispanic Americans technically fall under the white category (or at the very least that was the case at a point). Remember when the Irish weren't white? Yeah, that was thing. What about Jews?

What I'm basically trying to illustrate is that "race" as we define it is not real. Know what is? Species. Jon is literally two different species. Now how this actually relates to race, the social construct, is that Jon FEELS the distinct pull of two halves of who he is. This is easily interpreted as what some kids of mixed race may feel like. Jon has been chased and persecuted because of physical attributes (his DNA) that he had no say in gaining. Jon has had slurs aimed at him by young Damian Wayne.

But honestly I can simply tell you that Jon is multicultural. This is something that simply can't be argued. I'd even say that being multicultural is just as topical.

What genuine trials has Jon to face like any child who is actually of mixed race in the world?

Does being threatened with eradication by a space raciest count? Having is very being described as essentially being an affront to nature count? Or how about being abducted, held against his will, and made to endure xenophobic slurs count?

Not that much. I would say he's going to school just fine and is he getting getting bullied or judged or having to deal with what real kids of color who have a white parent?[

You know there's kids out there that "pass for" another dominant race but are still very much of mixed race, right?

Superman has never come out and owned who he is as Clark other than in Truth.

No but he's owned that he was an alien, and he's had to deal with xenophobic bigots who want nothing more than to see him dead.

Chris Kent could have fit in just as well and as others have said made more sense

That is up for SEROUS debate. As I said before, the idea of Superman existing as a son of two worlds has been a theme for even longer than his actual adoption by the Kents was in publication. A strong case could be made in favor of this. I don't dismissing the idea of adoption. I'm simply saying that this idea is just as valid.

[Adekis]

But then isn't the idea of bridging the gap between his old and new homes JUST as important? It's why Superman gets with Lois. Thematically speaking the idea of bridging the gap between worlds/balancing the two is the encapsulation of Clark Kent and Superman has been present even before the concrete idea that he was adopted was created. Half man and half "god" and the never ending conversation between them. That would be personified to a whole new level with a biological child with a human. In the same way that adopting a child is great thematically for Superman, so is him having a child with Lois Lane the human. It's even topical because of all of the first generation multicultural kids of immigrants who call the US home. What we have is literally a child of mixed "race" and culture who gets to live in the tomorrow that his father and mother broke their backs to build.

So I don't think you can discredit the idea in favor of thinking adoption the superior thematic way to go, because there are just as many extremely strong reasons present for a character like Jon to be here.

I don't think that your initial points are accurate. You said that Jon symbolizes the synthesis between Earth and Krypton that Superman achieves, but that's not really part of Superman's deal. I think there's an increasing view (which I happen to share) that it should be, e.g. when Gods and Monsters Luthor tells Superman that to distribute Kryptonian tech for the betterment of humanity it would be what turned him into "a real hero", and I'd argue that the late great New 52 Superman intended to do that at some point. We can even argue, from an in-universe perspective, that he would have had he lived, though we can only really say that because he's dead. But for most of the last seventy-eight years, Kal hasn't really "bridged the gap" between Earth and Krypton, he just kind of keeps the Krypto-Tech hidden away in the Fortress. It's why when Luthor says "gods" like Superman are "selfish beings who fly around in little red capes and don't share their powers with mankind" and compares himself to Prometheus in Returns, he kind of has a point, despite his mania.

Obviously this is an irritating paradox. Superman wants to dedicate himself to "helping those in need", to "benefit mankind", and yet he never seems to enact lasting change, becoming an agent of stasis instead. The reason of obvious. Superman may want to change the world, but if he's too good at it, we're not reading about a man fighting to change the world any more. Earth-0 has to resemble Earth-33 to a certain extent. But what it comes down to is that since he's not an agent of change (and the Rebirth Superman, Rao bless him, significantly less so than his preceding or rival Supermen), it becomes a ridiculous claim that Jon is a child of mixed race who "gets to live in the tomorrow that his father and mother broke their backs to build". Especially since any lasting change to hit the post-Flashpoint world so far was obviously the work of the post-Flashpoint Superman, not Jon's more conservative father.

But honestly I can simply tell you that Jon is multicultural. This is something that simply can't be argued. I'd even say that being multicultural is just as topical.

Maybe you're right, but I'm going to argue it anyway. Jon is not multi-cultural. He's a genetic hybrid, but his upbringing, as far as I can tell, is completely human, just totally standard American boy, except that he's kind of on the run because of who his parents are. He might feel the "distance" of being different, but not because he's sitting between two cultures like say, Ms. Marvel. It's because of what his Dad does. And what his Dad didn't do was give him a Kryptonian name. One of the reasons Gene Yang felt attracted to Superman was because his two names, Clark Kent and Kal-El, reminded him of his own Chinese American upbringing. The lack of a Kryptonian name signifies an absence of Kryptonian culture in Jon's life.

Jon's father seems so determined to impress the importance of yes, responsibility but also normalcy, that he chastises Jon for using his powers to help with normal-type tasks like moving into a new house. (Side note: I almost couldn't believe Clark Smith was inspired by the same Superman-tradition that gave us Dean Cain frying eggs with heat vision, haha!) And when he saw the late Superman's fortress, Clark Smith was honestly surprised that the late Kal had put up a statue of Jon and Martha Kent next to the statue of Jor-El and Lara- it had never occurred to him. To him, the Fortress was a place to set aside Krypton from the rest of the world- separate, other. I mean, he didn't even build it or have anything to do with his first one, the Eradicator made it for him.

The late Superman once had a vision (while being attacked by Adam Blake in Action #12, I think) of his ideal world, a Metropolis where Kryptonian tech improved people's everyday lives. I'd argue that Clark Smith would be totally against that. Where the late Kal was focused on the ability to make a difference (even though he didn't do much due to, you know, the previously stated necessity to keep Earth-0 like Earth-33. And endless crossovers), Clark Smith is back to the more common "Superman exists to catch them when they fall" model, and to him, Krypton isn't something that should impact Earth.

I know it's a roundabout way of saying it, but what I'm getting at is, that Clark's mindset affects how Jon was raised, and his mindset is only mildly evolved from the old post-Crisis days: America, not Krypton, is what matters. Krypton only matters as a source of powers and weapons to be used exclusively for the preservation of American values against petty crime and supernatural menace.

Does being threatened with eradication by a space raciest [sic] count? Having is very being described as essentially being an affront to nature count? Or how about being abducted, held against his will, and made to endure xenophobic slurs count?

That is up for SEROUS debate. As I said before, the idea of Superman existing as a son of two worlds has been a theme for even longer than his actual adoption by the Kents was in publication. A strong case could be made in favor of this. I don't dismissing the idea of adoption. I'm simply saying that this idea is just as valid.

Of course it matters that Jon's targeted and victimized for his facticity. But culture is as social a construct as race. Genetically, Jon's a hybrid, but socially he's just not getting enough Krypton into him. And again, I don't think that Jon himself indicates a dismissal of adoption, but creating him basically to drop into Chris' role and carry on an alternate version of Chris's development is definitely dismissive. If the powers that be had brought Chris back and then given him Jon as a younger brother, with only a sense of love and equality between them and no sense that Chris could turn evil, then that might be even better! But adoption was the impetus for Kal's interest in Krypton, both when he learned he was adopted and when he adopted Chris. Now with a son who is not adopted, the interest in Krypton has dried up, and without that, he's gone full farmboy on us.

I loved this moment between Chris and Tim.

That's just beautiful.

[Superlad93]

I don't think that your initial points are accurate. You said that Jon symbolizes the synthesis between Earth and Krypton that Superman achieves, but that's not really part of Superman's deal.

I'm purely talking about bridging the gap within himself. It's on a personal scale not a global one. As in the fact that he lives as a human and kryptonian. The idea that he's a child of two worlds. Superman remains as Clark Kent because that's a part of him. Superman is the god and Clark is the mortal, and that has been a core concept since his very first issue. With Jon that god and mortal dichotomy is now literal.

it becomes a ridiculous claim that Jon is a child of mixed race who "gets to live in the tomorrow that his father and mother broke their backs to build". Especially since any lasting change to hit the post-Flashpoint world so far was obviously the work of the post-Flashpoint Superman, not Jon's more conservative father.

Comics are ongoing and I was simply waxing poetic. Jon won't ever grow up to experience whatever tomorrow his mom and dad build for him. What I'm getting at is the idea of it.

Also pre-52 Superman still goes on to inspire the Legion, start the Superman dynasty, and guard all of creation till the end of time. His change seems pretty lasting to me. Outside of early in Morrison's run there's nothing that indicates the 52 Superman as a constant agent of change.

Jon is not multi-cultural. He's a genetic hybrid, but his upbringing, as far as I can tell, is completely human, just totally standard American boy

Whoa hold on there, because speaking from VERY direct experience I can tell you that you have no time limit on getting in touch with the other half of your culture. It's your birthright and it's something that will always be there waiting for you to acknowledge it. No one can erase multiculturalism. They can ignore and lie about it (as I've seen many times) but that doesn't change a person's roots. Jon is still half kryptonian and of the house of El by right.

He might feel the "distance" of being different, but not because he's sitting between two cultures like say, Ms. Marvel. It's because of what his Dad does.

This is in part true because the current writers have yet to explore the idea of Jon's second culture, but that doesn't me it's not there. But beyond that he doesn't need to feel "different" about his heritage for it to be validated (having a second culture besides the one you're currently living in DOESN'T have to make you "feel different." It can for sure. But for the most part that's distinctly myopic romantic western view on the idea of "the other.") That said, we do have the first arc with the Eradicator being essentially a super powered racist trying to kill Jon because of he's of mixed species. Then we have the ending where Clark tells Eradicator that Jon IS the future of the house of El, and then the ghost of Krypton flash the crest of the house of El in approval. So it's more than possible/likely that Jon will start to learn of his heritage sooner rather than later, but like I said before, there is no time limit. It doesn't make him any less Kryptonian if he learns about when he's 10 or 30.

And what his Dad didn't do was give him a Kryptonian name.

I really hope he does! I'm guessing it'll be after Kara, Clark, and Jon meet. I'd really love to dive into that stuff eventually.

he chastises Jon for using his powers to help with normal-type tasks like moving into a new house.

Yeah because he's 10 and just got his powers. That's not running away from heritage that's being safe. Later in Superman issue 1 Clark tells Jon that he'd like him to use his powers to fix the barn. Jon, without his father's supervision, ends up killing his pet cat on accident. Clark later takes him on a mission for support, and Action Comics strongly implies that they go out and practice Jon's powers regularly.

And when he saw the late Superman's fortress, Clark Smith was honestly surprised that the late Kal had put up a statue of Jon and Martha Kent next to the statue of Jor-El and Lara- it had never occurred to him. To him, the Fortress was a place to set aside Krypton from the rest of the world- separate, other.

Yeah probably because his parents were alive and well for the majority of his life. Also the New 52 Superman LITERALLY JUST added those statues at the start of Last Days. It was more like a final memorial now that he was dying. His parents had been dead for like 10 years yet it only occurred to him to added their statues just before he himself was about to die.

The late Superman once had a vision (while being attacked by Adam Blake in Action #12, I think) of his ideal world, a Metropolis where Kryptonian tech improved people's everyday lives. I'd argue that Clark Smith would be totally against that.

1)You have know way of knowing that for sure. 2) In DC 1 million pre52 Superman literally has Krypton brought back (and his two sets of parents I think)

And again, I don't think that Jon himself indicates a dismissal of adoption, but creating him basically to drop into Chris' role and carry on an alternate version of Chris's development is definitely dismissive.

I don't agree at all with this. Chris' situation was mess and would've gotten even messier had he been brought back. There's this whole deal with the Nightwing stuff, his aging, hi already being a superhero, him already finding his soulmate, and him already going through a whole war. You can't just go back to "Superman training and raising his 10 year old son" after ALL of that. That kid basically lived a whole life in fast forward. His perceptions would be wildly warped from what you'd expect of a 10 year old, and a 10 year old is what DC wanted (and it's also what the fans are responding well to). You might say "well just wipe his memory," but then he's not Chris Kent anymore, and you might as well just make a new character. So DC did.

Now with a son who is not adopted, the interest in Krypton has dried up

Well that's just straight up not true. This Superman has rebuilt his whole fortress by hand from memory in the current continuity. He even re carved the statue of his parents and he's carved in an inscription IN Kryptonian under their statue. The New human Clark Kent says to him "this is far more than a simple place of privacy," and to that Superman says "true. It's the slightest taste of Krypton. As much as I could jury-rig and reconstruct anyway." This is cold hard evidence that even though he's in a new land, Krypton is not at all far from his heart. As "Clark" puts it "this is far more than a simple place of privacy." So no, the interest is far from "dried up."

I imagine Superman is just taking things slow with Jon. Jon's powers have just come in, and he's still finding his footing with that concept, so it stands to reasons that he wants to get down his physical heritage before he introduces the cultural.

[mr_crisp]

I think it's because Batman has had young boys around him for decades now

That just sounds so dirty.

[Kuwagaton]

I don't think it's right, ethically speaking, to claim that a biological child makes you happier parents than an adopted one. In every way that matters, having an adopted kid is exactly the same as having a biological kid. However! Thematically, adoption is a massively important part of Superman's backstory, I'd even say it's the single most important thing about it. As a result, I'm quite bothered, not by the fact that Superman had a biological son, but by the fact that the writers had a perfectly good, brilliantly executed relationship with an adopted son who would have been easy to return to, and wasted it by giving Kal a biological son to fill the same role instead. In a lot of ways, it screams biological parenthood preferentialism to me, and I despise that, especially in the story of a man defined by his adoption.

I certainly didn't say that having a biological child means more happiness. Many people would like to have a child biologically and that has nothing to do with slighting the idea of adoption. If you would like to develop a family any particular way, and find out you can't, it can be a disappointment in and of itself, and "so what, you can adopt" would be inadequate consolation without any condescending opinion of adoption present.

When it comes to adoption as a theme, I think that just as the survival of the El bloodline is a huge theme, it's not enough to maintain a character relationship or a relationship with the readers. I liked Chris well enough, but I only saw him in Last Son and he wasn't much of a compelling character. It was too much like the situation with Kara they had going on for me to be engrossed, I guess. That panel of Chris and Tim is fitting to me because as far as I've seen they're just a bit bland when compared to their successors.

[Ascended]

But honestly I can simply tell you that Jon is multicultural. This is something that simply can't be argued. I'd even say that being multicultural is just as topical.

You know there's kids out there that "pass for" another dominant race but are still very much of mixed race, right?

Gotta side with my man Superlad on this one. Jon looks white, but that doesnt mean he isnt multiracial or multicultural.

My wife is Native American. Well, she's something of a mutt, but she's 50% Native with a spattering of other random races. Im Euro-white (mainly Irish/Scottish). Our kids look white (she's hails from some paler tribes than what most people think of when they hear the word "Native") but there are certain elements from her heritage that we celebrate that our kids' friends dont. We're fortunate that it hasn't been an issue (no space racists have stolen our children for example) but I dont think my son's friends have had naming ceremonies or done any of the other stuff.

Much like Jon, my kids are exposed to two different cultures. They dont look multiracial but really, looks are just skin deep aren't they? Now, if the racial divide was more obvious then there would be different things they might have to deal with but at the same time they have a small taste of what it is to have each foot in two different cultures.

In the end, my kids are growing up in a similar way as Jon, except instead of Kryptonian traditions they celebrate Native ones.

On a fun side note, one of the tribes my wife came from is the Cree. So I get to call her a "Cree hybrid" and make Carol Danvers jokes.