It's Superman by Tom De Haven

[Vigilante Man]

Is this a good read? What is Supes like in this one? I heard it got good mainstream reviews but I would like to know what real Superman fans think about it.

[CBikle]

I read it and liked it.

It's a very slow-paced book, basically chronicling Clark's move from Smallville to Metropolis with the depression era 1930's as a backdrop.

[The Chief5425]

A little too full of the Depression-era authenticity for my taste (though it's very well researched, if that's your sort of thing) and a little too light on the action. Still, I'm not sorry I read it. You can think of it as sort of a prequel to the 1940s Max Fleischer cartoons.

[Duy]

I don't regret reading it; I do, however, regret the purchase.

Clark is a straight up hick in this one, really, not the bright kid that you know he is despite living in an arguably hick town.

I think the reason it got good mainstream reviews is because it brought the "serious treatment of superheroes" thing to another medium, books, but the kind of thing has been done before, many times and better, in the comics.

Also, if you expect the Fleischer/George Reeves type Superman in this story just because it's set in that time period, don't waste your time. It's more like a season of Smallville... in the 30s.

[Mia]

I liked it at first, but ended up dropping it about a third in. Way too much focus on peripheral characters, and I got the feeling that the author was soap boxing his views.

See if you can pick it up at a used bookstore or even better the library.

[CBikle]

Clark is a straight up hick in this one, really, not the bright kid that you know he is despite living in an arguably hick town.

Not exactly. Clark is inexperienced and somewhat unsophisticated, but he's not dumb (although he occasionally feels dumb, especially after he meets Lex Luthor).

The whole point of the book is the early years of the golden-age Superman prior to 1938.

Also, if you expect the Fleischer/George Reeves type Superman in this story just because it's set in that time period, don't waste your time. It's more like a season of Smallville... in the 30s.

What ? No, wrong again. It's nothing like Smallville. It's closer to the Waltons, than Smallville.

[Sandy Hausler]

Is this a good read? What is Supes like in this one? I heard it got good mainstream reviews but I would like to know what real Superman fans think about it.

I thought it was great. If you expect a "continuity" Superman, you'll be disappointed, but I like the depression era hero that DeHaven has created.

Sandy Hausler

[Duy]

Not exactly. Clark is inexperienced and somewhat unsophisticated, but he's not dumb (although he occasionally feels dumb, especially after he meets Lex Luthor).

The whole point of the book is the early years of the golden-age Superman prior to 1938.



What ? No, wrong again. It's nothing like Smallville. It's closer to the Waltons, than Smallville.

If that's how you'd like to read it, go ahead. The Clark I know would have never taken orders from some annoying douche (who is pretty much the main character in the book, actually), nor would he have ever been ignorant enough to call Filipinos "Flips," no matter where he was raised.

Never watched the Waltons, so I'll take your word for it. The fact remains that I expected something along the lines of the Fleischer treatment and didn't get anything close to resembling it. Whether or not it was meant to be that is irrelevant, for that's the only reason I chose to read the book.

[CBikle]

The Clark I know...

This isn't the Clark you know; he's based off the original, golden-age Superman.

The golden-age Superman was a completely different animal from the one in comics today; he always used excessive force against evil-doers and enjoyed doing so.

...would have never taken orders from some annoying douche

I don't think he took orders from that guy, but he was clearly more street smart than Clark, so more often than not, Clark would follow the guy's lead, because he was his friend. Over time, Clark learned from the guy and the end result is the more confident Superman as we first saw him in Action Comics #1.

nor would he have ever been ignorant enough to call Filipinos "Flips," no matter where he was raised.

He was a product of his times; I can chalk that up to ignorance with no malice intended.

Also, Superman routinely used the terms "Japs" and "Krauts" during the 40's, as the Axis powers were our enemy.

[Duy]

This isn't the Clark you know; he's based off the original, golden-age Superman.

The golden-age Superman was a completely different animal from the one in comics today; he always used excessive force against evil-doers and enjoyed doing so.

What makes you think I don't know the original Golden Age Superman?

I've read enough Golden Age Superman stories, the early ones, no less, and I don't see any trace of him in the book. What I saw was, like I said, pretty much an R-rated period piece of something that reminded me more of Smallville than any other Superman I've read or watched from the 40s.

It is precisely because I wanted to see a treatment of the Golden Age Superman that I bought the book, and precisely because of that that I was disappointed.



I don't think he took orders from that guy, but he was clearly more street smart than Clark, so more often than not, Clark would follow the guy's lead, because he was his friend. Over time, Clark learned from the guy and the end result is the more confident Superman as we first saw him in Action Comics #1.

You can keep saying that the novel's Clark led to the Action Comics #1 Superman, and I still won't see it, because there's just a gigantic leap in personalities; they're like two different people.



He was a product of his times; I can chalk that up to ignorance with no malice intended.

Also, Superman routinely used the terms "Japs" and "Krauts" during the 40's, as the Axis powers were our enemy.

Yes, but you can see, probably why I, as a Filipino, was offended by the rather gratuitous (meaning unnecessary) use of the word.

The Axis was your enemy. The Philippines was your ally/colony.

[Binker]

As a Superman fan, here is my two cents: ever since I've read it; I've praised this book. There are many reasons, but to start with one, it's because of its original takes on the Superman myth. The characters, costume, S-Shield, powers, etc. Even if there are something new about them added into the myth, writers have reused (no problem there, BTW) those aspects regardless, due to the fact that they're well-known or otherwise ("S" = El Family Crest). In It's Superman!, you're given a brand new take that's fresh. For example: the costume; in the myth, Superman's costume is mainly the sheets Kal-El had as a baby. In the novel, and no spoilers BTW, Clark uses his strength to get a job in Hollywood as a stuntman. He dates a costume designer whose film, Saucer Men from Saturn, is canned and only has one of the suits made. The costume, that Clark take a liking towards, is, you guessed it: blue costume, red cape, with a "S" that was suppose to stand for Saturn. It's that kind of fresh take that you would wish and hope Smallville comes up with to bring in the costume in that show's universe.

But onto the characters and story; Clark is shown in the novel from the ages of 18-21, and what makes this novel stand out probably from ALL of the comics, novels, television, etc is that this is probably the most human Clark we've ever seen. He's into women, there is a point he smokes, he calls his best friend a pain in the ass, and there are moments where, even though he still uses them for good, he does push his powers, even if it's a little bit, into his advantage. This does not, however, alter our POV that this is Superman, and the novel doesn't do that either. Lois Lane is a woman of the '30s; fighting for her place in the world that looks down on women as someone "for the house", fighting (only in the beginning) her father for the right to do what she wants even if it's something her father doesn't approve of (he wanted her to go to a hotel, she went on her own to just a normal apartment), as well as fighting to be THE reporter who gets the job done. This is still the Lois Lane we all know, as the novel does give us many funny bits that are cute, that come from her. And of course, there is Lex Luthor. But here, the author gives us a great parallel between Clark and Lex: they don't belong. For Clark, he looks like human, but he doesn't fit in because he does things others can't. For Lex; he is smart enough to be anything in the world, but nothing seems to suit him, regardless of its position of power, which is why he doesn't fit it. You see him go from a businessman, to even an adlerman, but none of that actually feels right to him. It is only when he kills someone by himself that feels something he hasn't felt, maybe for his entire life: excitement.

Other things about the book: we get a new character in Willi Berg, who is our Jimmy Olsen of the book. In fact, in the original treatment for the book (which was 1,000 pages!), because he is a photographer and dyes his hair red when he is running from the law, his alias was going to be "Jimmy Olsen". DC didn't like that, which is funny (even though I doubt this was in the plans back in Season 6), with what happened to Jimmy Olsen later Henry James Olsen in Smallville Season 8. The 1930s is played out well; you hear about things that Clark learns about in school, the news around the around from '35-38, things that were common in the '30s is explored. All in all letting you knwo that these characters, this story, everything is the 1930s, and not now.

Closing comments: I really think you should try this book out. As I've said: this is a good read, and it presents itself as a fresh take on the Superman myth that is very good. One other thing I like to mention; for me personally, I related more to this Clark than the others. Granted, I could relate to Clark, and Peter Parker a bit, with concepts like the X-Men's Mutants, but this Clark not only had things that I could relate with, this Clark IS/WAS me. Which is nice, because you can feel and think the same way as the character you're seeing or reading about.

All in all, check it out. Despite these changes, the book does point it out with its title: IT'S SUPERMAN!

P.S. Two things: if you've watched the '40s Superman cartoons; you'll be picturing that when you're reading it. Secondly, the comic podcast Comic Geek Speak reviewed this as well as talked to the book's author, Tom DeHaven, in one of their episodes. You can download it here:
http://media.libsyn.com/media/comicgeekspeak/cgs-episode086.mp3

[Duy]

P.S. Two things: if you've watched the '40s Superman cartoons; you'll be picturing that when you're reading it.

That's what I kept trying to do, but it never worked.

[Vigilante Man]

I listened to the interview by De Haven and the book sounds really cool. I read many positive reviews about this book but it was the interview with De Haven that sealed the deal for me. As a fan of the Golden Age Superman I'm gonna check this book out.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

It's a very interesting take on the earliest version of Superman and the stuff with Clark, Lois & Lex is excellent. There's also a Jewish version of Jimmy Olsen called Eddie Berg I found more compelling than any other version of Jimmy Olsen out there. However, the book is cluttered with seemingly endless digressions into unnecessary historical detail and secondary characters I simply had no interest in.