Was postcrisis superman more complex?

[manwhohaseverything]

It's more complex because it recognizes and deals with the actual complexities of a problem. It doesn't imagine a simple solution to a complex problem by ignoring the complexities.

You're literally rewriting the story to make it more complex to address the shortcomings.

Huh? His actions in the GA stories weren't being presented as morally complex, they were simple right and wrong. You're making up complexities that don't exist in the stories, which is what the black and white comment you posted means. The stories don't deal with any complexities, they are simple morality tales. That's not how any of that time period is presented. Nor is it what the morality criticisms in the post is. You're retroactively making it more complex by imagining all these scenarios. It wasn't presented as complex, it was simple. They identified a problem, they presented a solution that he could punch to fix, and it worked. There's no complexity because the stories were simple one offs.

Okay.what are the actual moral complexities?
In a goldenage setting, If the owners aren't giving safe housing due to greed. Then Clark's fists will fly. Else, if they themselves are in trouble clark would go straight to the source .If money is an issue he would do whatever it takes.

Not really,Just escalation. Superman adapts.already, said it. The mind set, i am using is that of what anarchists like goldenage superman or luffy would do. Superman adapting.



You saying that doesn't make it so. Superman was regularly treated as vigilante figure. As j jonah Jameson would say "He's a Menace,I tell yah!. A Menace ".And for superman that might have been true. There is a simple right and wrong there. But,That doesn’t mean the character superman was'nt complex nor the situation he handled or the way he handled can't be seen from different perspectives. Hence, the complexity. Furthermore, postcrisis is actually the one about simple moral tales, with simplistic "hope harder, dream bigger" lessons and superman being an example kinda deal. Goldenage had nothing to do with superman being a moral example. He is just a strongman vigilante from space.He was a true champion.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--PXtVyJ2C...c42/RCO014.jpg

Note:-clark could have gotten hurt. His skin wasn't nearly as tough back then

[Flash Gordon]

No, not at all.

The Pre-Crisis/Bronze Age Superman was infinitely more complex and interesting. As was his world. His adventures were bright and bold, yet all had such a strong melancholy to them. There's so much below the surface.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think you could argue that Post Crisis Superman was designed to be simpler rather than more complex. Post Crisis Superman is more fully realized as a human character, to my mind much too much like Peter Parker, but I wouldn't say more complex. One of the big knocks against pre crisis Superman was that his universe and timeline was too baffling. The whole pre-crisis idea was to streamline the story. When I read Superman comics now, they feel like a big soap opera, "My stories," as Kevin Smith says. When I read pre-crisis Superman, especially the imaginary tales, the red kryptonite stories, the almost twilight zone allegories of some of those books, I see the connection to later books like the Sandman or Alan Moores Swamp Thing. Superman's universe seemed to host every kind of possible story, and underneath them all, I see some sort of commentary on what it means to be a human being in an increasingly mechanized or alien world. Fables about power, humanity, and what it means to pursue justice. That and stories with flying monkeys and horses.

No, not at all.

The Pre-Crisis/Bronze Age Superman was infinitely more complex and interesting. As was his world. His adventures were bright and bold, yet all had such a strong melancholy to them. There's so much below the surface.

I feel like a lot of DC's major heroes, but pre-COIE Superman and his lore in particular, lend themselves well to 2000AD type stories. There could be a sense of continuity and passage of time, but mostly stand alone fable-like sci-fi stories. I feel like serialized soap opera melodrama stories with "character arcs" can create the illusion of complexity but are actually surface level. They're just "louder" than the more subtle character arc Superman goes through in stuff like All-Star, which end up being more mature. Moore telling the best Superman stories at that time, and some of the best stand alone stories the character has ever had, with the pre-COIE setup and 2000AD background drives this home I feel.

The closest DC book we have now is The Green Lantern. Morrison doesn't have to write it again, but I'd love something along those lines for Superman again.

[Kuwagaton]

I think that being better by being more like something else, 2000AD or Green Lantern, makes it sound like it's lacking.

There was a good point about being able to read into older stories as being more between the lines. Imagination is the name of the game... but to me it's also a little like finding an empty glass more satisfying than a glass of water. I love a lot of Superman stories with inexplicable content, but I definitely understand why things like Key to Fort Superman or the tiny Superman from the fingers don't hold the distinction of a classic Spider-Man.

That scene was talking about morality not story complexity. Morality in the 1930's is largely considered more black and white. I mean, razing a tenement so the owners will build a new safer housing is ridiculously simplistic and naive. Recognizing that that would result only in homelessness for the residents and a lucrative opportunity to rebuild as something other than low income housing would be a modern take so another solution would be better served. Even New 52 Superman saw that type of complexity.

That was what this scene was getting at. You see that play out still today with practically any issue.

Yeah. I think a direct example is how that wife beater from the first issue got the same treatment post crisis... only for it to be shown as completely ineffective as a means of stopping domestic violence. The mindset from those stories wouldn't make any sense in modern stories. That's not to knock them down, but it is what it is. There's a substantial upgrade in storytelling that comes with years of people working things out and building on what other people have done.

I think you could argue that Post Crisis Superman was designed to be simpler rather than more complex. Post Crisis Superman is more fully realized as a human character, to my mind much too much like Peter Parker, but I wouldn't say more complex.

The idea was to dial back to the older Superman, who didn't immediately know who or what he was. "Pre Crisis" Superman was basically the same guy as a kid and teen.

Post Crisis he learns that he's two people instead of one and takes years to unpack it. All of the life developments he went through and all of his attitudes were part of the same continuity, so you could see one aspect of his life change over the course of years instead of being unacknowledged for the most part when writers changed. The story was as dedicated to who he is as it was dedicated to what he does

[Johnny Thunders!]

I shouldn't speak too much on a character I didn't follow or know as much. I was on board for the first 20 Byrne issues, and then I just decided it was just not meant for me and my time. I would like to go and re-read the whole immediate re-launch up to Death and Return. Especially since I have enjoyed Dan Jurgens, Jerry Ordway, Roger Stern, all over the place. They had a team going.
I just had to bury my version of the character, it was jarring, oh you know what, just like Sandman from Morpheus to Daniel. I have to give Jim Kelley credit on that other thread, the Sandman parallels to Superman hold up. Unlike all that stuff I blather on about. Re-reading old posts can be rough. 2000 a.d, I would love for someone to do a Superman run set in 2000 AD. I was loving the GL from Morrison!

[Ascended]

Yeah, I think this nails. Maybe the stories were simpler, but as a character/person I think he was a great deal more nuanced than what came after.

The "Superman is what I do, Clark Kent is who I am" that we see pop up in a lot of post-Crisis narratives and really took hold in that era just makes him less weird and more boring as a result.

Nuance is the name of the game. Pre-Crisis Superman, once the writing itself began to mature and be aimed at an older audience, had a lot going on in his head, a lot of varying facets, and some of those elements of his personality were at direct conflict with other aspects. I mean, as Superman he'd say stuff like "Great Rao!" and seemed to follow, at least to a degree, Kryptonian religion and customs and traditions (like the holiday where you can't lie). But Clark Kent? Even with no one around to hear him, it wasn't "Great Rao!" but instead "My God!" and I know there were at least a few instances of Clark mentioning church (though not many, to my knowledge). So....what religion was he? The answer seems to be "depends on which suit he's wearing at the time." Stuff like that was all over the character back in the day, all these things where Clark and Superman were sort of at odds. How does one balance "Kal-El" against "Clark Kent?" That tension between the two personas is pretty fascinating. And post-Crisis just does not have anything like that. Clark's got some baggage, but he's generally just a well adjusted, normal guy. There's *some* nuance and tension, but at best it's like a first generation immigrant trying to honor the culture of his parents while making his way in the new country. And that can be interesting as hell, but not very deep compared to the dude who was practically two people inside his own head, and still 100% sane.

Post Crisis he learns that he's two people instead of one and takes years to unpack it. All of the life developments he went through and all of his attitudes were part of the same continuity, so you could see one aspect of his life change over the course of years instead of being unacknowledged for the most part when writers changed. The story was as dedicated to who he is as it was dedicated to what he does

Clark had a character arc, got married, learned a thing or two, dealt with some problems, etc etc. But is that complexity? Or was he just a relatively basic character with some well defined habits and hobbies who got to go through some of life's motions before being rebooted?

I'm not knocking on post-Crisis here (for a change). He was well developed, with concrete interests and hobbies and all the glitz we expect from a well defined character. But I don't think that version was overly complex, when we apply some literary analysis to him.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think that being better by being more like something else, 2000AD or Green Lantern, makes it sound like it's lacking.

There was a good point about being able to read into older stories as being more between the lines. Imagination is the name of the game... but to me it's also a little like finding an empty glass more satisfying than a glass of water. I love a lot of Superman stories with inexplicable content, but I definitely understand why things like Key to Fort Superman or the tiny Superman from the fingers don't hold the distinction of a classic Spider-Man.

I think it's more that I can see some shared DNA in the early Silver Age Superman that lends itself to that type of content. Edmond Hamilton's scripts were more simplistic (so we can't do a blanket endorsement of it for those who like "For the Man Who Has Everything'), but I can see how content like that could evolve more into the stuff that Moore wrote.

And IDK, classic Spider-Man holds up better but could be pretty inexplicable and repetitive in its own right. In terms of characterizations and being the model for the type of storytelling we have now, I think Silver Age Marvel in general holds up far better than Silver Age DC, because they really codified that type of storytelling and when they did it well, they did it really well. But it can run into drawbacks of its own. I agree that Superman being the same guy as a teen and an adult isn't a compelling idea, but I think it's preferable for him to get the hard knocks out of the way as Superboy (which post-COIE got rid of) than trying to figure it out as Superman. Really, modernizing Clark-as-Superboy stories could have been the perfect response to Peter Parker.

Nuance is the name of the game. Pre-Crisis Superman, once the writing itself began to mature and be aimed at an older audience, had a lot going on in his head, a lot of varying facets, and some of those elements of his personality were at direct conflict with other aspects. I mean, as Superman he'd say stuff like "Great Rao!" and seemed to follow, at least to a degree, Kryptonian religion and customs and traditions (like the holiday where you can't lie). But Clark Kent? Even with no one around to hear him, it wasn't "Great Rao!" but instead "My God!" and I know there were at least a few instances of Clark mentioning church (though not many, to my knowledge). So....what religion was he? The answer seems to be "depends on which suit he's wearing at the time." Stuff like that was all over the character back in the day, all these things where Clark and Superman were sort of at odds. How does one balance "Kal-El" against "Clark Kent?" That tension between the two personas is pretty fascinating. And post-Crisis just does not have anything like that. Clark's got some baggage, but he's generally just a well adjusted, normal guy. There's *some* nuance and tension, but at best it's like a first generation immigrant trying to honor the culture of his parents while making his way in the new country. And that can be interesting as hell, but not very deep compared to the dude who was practically two people inside his own head, and still 100% sane.

Moore had that great bit in his Superman team up with Swamp Thing, where Clark has a dream about his two personas arguing via his clothes coming to life. You can't really do that with the post-COIE guy.

Dude was as neurotic as Peter Parker ever was, probably even more than Bruce Wayne at that point (who seemed remarkably well adjusted compared to what he would become). Some of it may have been accidental on the part of the creators who may not have been putting much thought into it, but there is a LOT to unpack with Superman just by observing his habits and contradictions.

"I'm lonely about being the only Kryptonian" he says to himself, as he shunts Kara off to the orphanage/the Danvers.
There was also that time he had to fake blindness after a flash that would have blinded a normal man to cover his identity. As Seanbaby said, all the dude had to say was "oh **** that was bright, but I think I'm ok" but he fully commits to fake blindness and gets a seeing eye dog and develops a very real depression for his very fake disability when everyone starts treating him differently. It's like he was addicted to complications.

[Ascended]

Dude was as neurotic as Peter Parker ever was, probably even more than Bruce Wayne at that point (who seemed remarkably well adjusted compared to what he would become). Some of it may have been accidental on the part of the creators who may not have been putting much thought into it, but there is a LOT to unpack with Superman just by observing his habits and contradictions.

I think a lot of the best characterizations in long-form narratives like comics tend to unfold by accident; a writer does something not really thinking about it, then the next guy picks it up and spins it slightly, and eighty years later you've got this wonderfully complex character in front of you.

But yeah, my gods wasn't Superman a giant ball of weird traits and contradictions. I don't know how that dude was even able to function honestly, and the fact that he did just makes him so much more interesting and inspiring. It's hard for me to read post-Crisis trying to be inspiring, it just looks like his privilege is showing, yknow? But pre-Crisis....that dude had way more problems than I do; by human standards he was batshit crazy, but he still got up every day, kept his head in the game, and did the job, and he did it with a minimum of whining. And that's a kind of badass I can appreciate and cheer for.

[Flash Gordon]

I feel like a lot of DC's major heroes, but pre-COIE Superman and his lore in particular, lend themselves well to 2000AD type stories. There could be a sense of continuity and passage of time, but mostly stand alone fable-like sci-fi stories. I feel like serialized soap opera melodrama stories with "character arcs" can create the illusion of complexity but are actually surface level. They're just "louder" than the more subtle character arc Superman goes through in stuff like All-Star, which end up being more mature. Moore telling the best Superman stories at that time, and some of the best stand alone stories the character has ever had, with the pre-COIE setup and 2000AD background drives this home I feel.

The closest DC book we have now is The Green Lantern. Morrison doesn't have to write it again, but I'd love something along those lines for Superman again.

1,000%

'Character arcs' and long form narrative storylines don't work with a character like Superman, who feels most at home in small fables. Alan Moore got this, Grant Morrison too. When stretched out into a modern yarn, Superman becomes boring and one note. He's just Mr. Status Quo stopping Rampage for the 30th time. Thematically Superman is more than a superhero, he's a melancholy alien who pretends to be a human and tries his best to do right by others.

I can see the Silver Age material grow into the Alan Moore works, which should have grown into a more introspective scifi book. More 2000AD than the Amazing Spider-Man (who is at home amongst the simplistic narratives of superheroes).

[manwhohaseverything]

The idea was to dial back to the older Superman, who didn't immediately know who or what he was. "Pre Crisis" Superman was basically the same guy as a kid and teen.

Post Crisis he learns that he's two people instead of one and takes years to unpack it. All of the life developments he went through and all of his attitudes were part of the same continuity, so you could see one aspect of his life change over the course of years instead of being unacknowledged for the most part when writers changed. The story was as dedicated to who he is as it was dedicated to what he does

The idea might have great. But, the execution was horrendous .
There were two problems
1) They removed the vigilante aspect. Siegel and shuster always played with ambiguity of whether this guy could turn out good or not. Why? I firmly believe the original idea of superman being an evil bald dude had something to do with it. They also made superman/clark the guy kent into a fake or a thing he does. There was no act, no persona. The titular identity being a fake is a big no.
2) Goldenage guy had a certain swashbuckling energy compared to the postcrisis guy's "aw! Shucks pa! I am boyscout" energy.He had inherited the steal from the rich vibes from zorro in spades.Worse, they introduced drama and made clark angsty. The biggest sin you could do to superman . Superman went from a "rootin tootin son of a gun" to "me no krypotonian. Me kent!Me sad! Me Cry! Lois loves me not, ma and pa!!!Me saviour" in a way that's unappealing . Listen, i read about a kid who lost his entire body and was stuck in a tin can. He still didn't angst it up like clark did or does. Most of Clark's personal problems are trivial and they treat it like "sky is falling"

I still don't understand. Since when is being more dramatic a more complex narrative?

Sheesh! Gonna go on a little rant. Can be ignored . Who cares superman writers?Clark, you are an effin action hero. Act like something that has a semblance of one. Post-Crisis was really tiring to read through. Thankfully, jon provided me with some mischievous adventures swashbuckling vibe. This time with a child like innocence and quirkiness . But, even that got taken over by effin drama and clark needing somekind idiotic peptalks or whatever from his wife, ma, pa... Etc. Legion is thankfully better. Even then the kid's personality is largely in shambles. Keep him away from postcrisis superman and drama. It doesn't work. Period.Jon is curious, misheveous, quirky, has certain disregard for protocols and laws, adventures, reckless, vulnerable, actually shown to work/train.. Etc. Just keep the kid that way.

[Kuwagaton]

Nuance is the name of the game. Pre-Crisis Superman, once the writing itself began to mature and be aimed at an older audience, had a lot going on in his head, a lot of varying facets, and some of those elements of his personality were at direct conflict with other aspects. I mean, as Superman he'd say stuff like "Great Rao!" and seemed to follow, at least to a degree, Kryptonian religion and customs and traditions (like the holiday where you can't lie). But Clark Kent? Even with no one around to hear him, it wasn't "Great Rao!" but instead "My God!" and I know there were at least a few instances of Clark mentioning church (though not many, to my knowledge). So....what religion was he? The answer seems to be "depends on which suit he's wearing at the time." Stuff like that was all over the character back in the day, all these things where Clark and Superman were sort of at odds.

There was a notable maturation in the writing with the early 80s. The issues stories being things he could solve in one issue and his character had considerable impact on the actual lives of people around him more than just by saving them. By having the main character interact with people beyond what's at hand with the plot, it could be more dramatic. Like Superman dreading Perry's Alzheimer's, which makes him look like a legit friend instead of someone he just sees a lot. A lot of that was done by Pasko (RIP), Bates and the same Wolfman who immediately got the character running on the same track post crisis.

Because the stories were cohesive across 3-4 titles, they never just outright ignored or deleted each other (well, until that became all they seemed to do in the 00s) and even some the imaginary stories (the annual year that gave us President Superman for example) tended to reflect the ongoing plots. Whatever Happened did that best, but that was at the literal end of pre crisis so never went further.

Superman at that point had become a character who, when read in stories two years apart, was actually different from having experienced those two years (our time). Rather than just outright banning all killing, he has an informed opinion from experience and finds it viable with a given situation. He could spend a story writing a book that we eventually get to read. He could check in on his neighbors or co-workers outside of some super plot, and follow up with them on the topic later.

How does one balance "Kal-El" against "Clark Kent?" That tension between the two personas is pretty fascinating. And post-Crisis just does not have anything like that. Clark's got some baggage, but he's generally just a well adjusted, normal guy. There's *some* nuance and tension, but at best it's like a first generation immigrant trying to honor the culture of his parents while making his way in the new country. And that can be interesting as hell, but not very deep compared to the dude who was practically two people inside his own head, and still 100% sane.

Pre Crisis, he really wasn't Clark though. He wasn't within mortal confines ever, came to earth with memories of Krypton. He didn't struggle for years to understand Clark, just put him on like a backpack as a kid. When he speaks to you as Clark he might have an objective as Superman, but Superman wouldn't speak to you about something for the sake of Clark. Bates and Maggin seemed to agree that they were decidedly separate.

Not that I don't like it. They balanced the ease of maintaining the Clark guise with his relentless female foils. The Superman robots were remarkably clever because not only did he have to prove he wasn't the other identity, but also that he wasn't a robot. Not a dream or hoax, haha. They also had a later outlet for Superman's mischief through his prank war with Steve. Clark was easy to maintain because he sucked, but sucking made him effective in story and funny for us

Clark had a character arc, got married, learned a thing or two, dealt with some problems, etc etc. But is that complexity? Or was he just a relatively basic character with some well defined habits and hobbies who got to go through some of life's motions before being rebooted?

I'm not knocking on post-Crisis here (for a change). He was well developed, with concrete interests and hobbies and all the glitz we expect from a well defined character. But I don't think that version was overly complex, when we apply some literary analysis to him.

He manages to be two actual guys simultaneously. I'm a big fan of Adventures of Superman #599, where he spends the whole issue talking to a Russian farmer as Superman, but obviously relating as Clark. Being written that way made him written more consistently with decisions that had long term weight.

And sorry, I say all that meaning to get back to Infinite Crisis: Superman, which is kinda the negative side of that. It makes the decisions in his life more difficult, having to think about what he does more carefully. You'll get Camelot Falls out of it, but weaker stories can make him look indecisive and too reluctant in the midst of chaos. Earth Two Superman contends that his uncertainty, that ability to waver in gray instead of go black or white, makes him a liability. At worst, sure.

I think it's more that I can see some shared DNA in the early Silver Age Superman that lends itself to that type of content. Edmond Hamilton's scripts were more simplistic (so we can't do a blanket endorsement of it for those who like "For the Man Who Has Everything'), but I can see how content like that could evolve more into the stuff that Moore wrote.

Oh, yeah. I hope he did inspire some if that stuff. I'm sure Morrison's familiar with it, and Green Lantern is easily the coolest DC comic I've read in at least a decade.

And IDK, classic Spider-Man holds up better but could be pretty inexplicable and repetitive in its own right. In terms of characterizations and being the model for the type of storytelling we have now, I think Silver Age Marvel in general holds up far better than Silver Age DC, because they really codified that type of storytelling and when they did it well, they did it really well. But it can run into drawbacks of its own. I agree that Superman being the same guy as a teen and an adult isn't a compelling idea, but I think it's preferable for him to get the hard knocks out of the way as Superboy (which post-COIE got rid of) than trying to figure it out as Superman. Really, modernizing Clark-as-Superboy stories could have been the perfect response to Peter Parker.

Agreed on Spider-Man. What I mean with Superboy is that had all the same knocks as Superman though. There was even a Superboy Revenge Squad made up of middle aged aliens. Cool in a way, but not really the same function as Peter Parker, who wasn't a young version of another character.

Moore had that great bit in his Superman team up with Swamp Thing, where Clark has a dream about his two personas arguing via his clothes coming to life. You can't really do that with the post-COIE guy.

Unfortunately, Moore has yet to have the chance (and likely doesn't care at all) to show us what he'd do instead.

1) They removed the vigilante aspect. Siegel and shuster always played with ambiguity of whether this guy could turn out good or not. Why? I firmly believe the original idea of superman being an evil bald dude had something to do with it. They also made superman/clark the guy kent into a fake or a thing he does. There was no act, no persona. The titular identity being a fake is a big no.

You're talking about a ship that had sailed before the forties had ended. Vigilante? Not in WWII, not after either. We're talking less than ten years for an eighty year old character. The bald guy didn't even make it to print unless you count something vaguely similar and possibly unintentional like Killer Kent.

2) Goldenage guy had a certain swashbuckling energy compared to the postcrisis guy's "aw! Shucks pa! I am boyscout" energy.He had inherited the steal from the rich vibes from zorro in spades.

Except he didn't steal from the rich, he empowered people to make it for themselves by helping with obstacles in their way. It's not like that kid in Autograph Please didn't win the competition fair and square before Superman used his powers to help. If you compare Superman to Luffy I think you can see what I mean.

Superman isn't about giving to make things "fair." So to me it's not a change in the character if he's still not like that later. What does happen later is that he's immediately given all of Kryptonian history in his head as a download, from knowing nothing about it. Unpacking it is enough that a nosy psychic dies from the stress of tried to break and enter. The "boy scout" thing is a surface deep criticism.

Worse, they introduced drama and made clark angsty. The biggest sin you could do to superman . Superman went from a "rootin tootin son of a gun" to "me no krypotonian. Me kent!Me sad! Me Cry! Lois loves me not, ma and pa!!!Me saviour"

You asked for another perspective on complexity, but it's hard to get it if this is where you're coming from.

[Robanker]

This really is just a discussion on storytelling and it's evolution. In the thirties, you punched the two-bit crook holding the gun and threw that mug in the slammer. Threw away the key even.

Now we write about what motivated them to a life of crime, weigh that against the laws they violate and see our heroes react appropriately. That's what this is talking about. The Superman on the left would argue, for example, that Jason Todd is a severely misguided young man that was thrust into a life, death and revival that nobody could prepare him for and needs help to stop making bad decisions. Golden age Superman would see someone with a gun and punch him. Because that's what heroes did back then. Superhero storytelling wasn't particularly sophisticated. I'm not saying that as a dig to those stories, but they flat out were not.

For what it's worth, the best answer is in the middle. Full on golden age is a bit too reckless for 2020 when you have Clark's immense abilities. Everyone would fear the dude. The way most writers handle Clark, however, is a relatively toothless representative of the status quo. He needs to pull closer to a medium.

[jetengine]

Golden Age Superman is good in idea (in universe) but bad in irl practice. The "beat up the landlords" thing doesnt actually work

[manwhohaseverything]

This really is just a discussion on storytelling and it's evolution. In the thirties, you punched the two-bit crook holding the gun and threw that mug in the slammer. Threw away the key even.

Now we write about what motivated them to a life of crime, weigh that against the laws they violate and see our heroes react appropriately. That's what this is talking about. The Superman on the left would argue, for example, that Jason Todd is a severely misguided young man that was thrust into a life, death and revival that nobody could prepare him for and needs help to stop making bad decisions. Golden age Superman would see someone with a gun and punch him. Because that's what heroes did back then. Superhero storytelling wasn't particularly sophisticated. I'm not saying that as a dig to those stories, but they flat out were not.

For what it's worth, the best answer is in the middle. Full on golden age is a bit too reckless for 2020 when you have Clark's immense abilities. Everyone would fear the dude. The way most writers handle Clark, however, is a relatively toothless representative of the status quo. He needs to pull closer to a medium.

It depends on how the gun was used and sure chances of jason getting punched if clark misunderstood his motive or if jason got in Clark's way is very high. Otherwise, nah! Why? Superman is a gun too and he was a fellow outlaw. He knows it. And i don't know, i think clark and jason would have been buds. He would be more at home with jason, bizarro, Artemis.. Etc.Hey! I didn't start the would have could have thing.

For what it's worth, i don't think the current storytelling 1\10 the sophistication. Opinions.

Also, guy/gals i was expecting a discussion on what make postcrisis complex. i haven't heard much of a reason. @Yoda and the later guys were more prone to thinking of consequences and taking safe decision(condensing the opinion, sorry if i butchered or changed it) . I don't believe that's superman aka man of action. But, i can atleast get behind that. @ascended said, postcrisis superman was well developed but not particularly complex . I agree with that.

[manwhohaseverything]

You're talking about a ship that had sailed before the forties had ended. Vigilante? Not in WWII, not after either. We're talking less than ten years for an eighty year old character. The bald guy didn't even make it to print unless you count something vaguely similar and possibly unintentional like Killer Kent.



Except he didn't steal from the rich, he empowered people to make it for themselves by helping with obstacles in their way. It's not like that kid in Autograph Please didn't win the competition fair and square before Superman used his powers to help. If you compare Superman to Luffy I think you can see what I mean.

Superman isn't about giving to make things "fair." So to me it's not a change in the character if he's still not like that later. What does happen later is that he's immediately given all of Kryptonian history in his head as a download, from knowing nothing about it. Unpacking it is enough that a nosy psychic dies from the stress of tried to break and enter. The "boy scout" thing is a surface deep criticism.



You asked for another perspective on complexity, but it's hard to get it if this is where you're coming from.

Not really, i still see that side of him now and there in some or many portrayals. Ifvthere wasn't any i wouldn't be interested in the character . As long as the disguise exist,Superman will always be vigilante.i wasn't talking about balD guy making it to print. It's the way the character in the creator's mind had influenced the later one. I firmly think, superman being weapon/gun metaphor was also a basis of that. Superman can be deadly. Even now that part remains the same.Superman being treated this "all good figure" has always been bogus to me.

Didn't i say vibe? If i didn't i meant, steal from the rich vibe. Furthermore, i don't believe clark is above that as well. You can disagree. I haven't seen anything to disagree with him.i didn't much see him "empower" anybody. That would require clark himself to be in a position above than the people he helps. He trained people in the things he is good at and actually listened to people as one of them. He solved problems with his limited mental capacity and reckless jumping in head first into action.

Superman might not be about "fair". he might not be out there to make everyone equal in all dimensions. That would be totalitarianism. The guy doesn't like chains. but, he is about truth and justice. He fights for those who can't fight for themselves . The guy wouldn't bow to greed of a rich person and refuse to see the cry of a needy and helpless poor. That would be injustice . He was the working class champion .The guy is one of the heroes that emerged from depression. He became a viglante because he can't handle such structural injustices. It's funny you mentioned luffy, i just read a chapter of one piece. where luffy remembers a girl who gets sick of hunger because he sees some guys( who exploit their country) waste food a valuable resource. What would superman do in that instance? For me, he would walk straight up and deck them.Another instance, suppose some poor little girl got sick with some unholy disease. Lex is the only one who has the equipment needed to cure her.He refuses to give it up. I would say clark would be punching through walls to get the equipment,. Furthermore, on his way out he would slug lex as well just for a laugh.

Sorry about that, was my frustration about reading through the books slipping through.I just want to have the swashbuckling adventure energy in the superbooks.