Tom Brevoort on Superman

[Auguste Dupin]

The loss of Krypton should be felt more by Supergirl, since she grew up there. And in a world full of superheroes, Superman really shouldn't feel like an outsider. The other heroes look up to him and he should be a leader, by example more than words, and you can't do that as an introvert. We should be inspired by Superman, not feel sory for him.

People want to pile every classical hero element on Superman, but like I said, there's a lot of heroes out there- spread some of that myth around. The funny thing is, being a regular guy who went home to his wife every night made Superman a much more unique character in the superhero world.

Being in a world full of superheroes doesn't change the fact Superman is the last of his race, hence the loner part. Green Lantern is as different to him than Perry White. Of course, he isn't the last of his race anymore, but it's something Brevoort said he was specifically against. Besides, I'm not sure that being one of the last two instead of THE last does change that much how you feel about it.

[davidgrantlloyd]

The loss of Krypton should be felt more by Supergirl, since she grew up there. And in a world full of superheroes, Superman really shouldn't feel like an outsider. The other heroes look up to him and he should be a leader, by example more than words, and you can't do that as an introvert. We should be inspired by Superman, not feel sory for him.

People want to pile every classical hero element on Superman, but like I said, there's a lot of heroes out there- spread some of that myth around. The funny thing is, being a regular guy who went home to his wife every night made Superman a much more unique character in the superhero world.

The loss of Krypton should be felt more by Supergirl, since she grew up there. And in a world full of superheroes, Superman really shouldn't feel like an outsider. The other heroes look up to him and he should be a leader, by example more than words, and you can't do that as an introvert. We should be inspired by Superman, not feel sory for him.

People want to pile every classical hero element on Superman, but like I said, there's a lot of heroes out there- spread some of that myth around. The funny thing is, being a regular guy who went home to his wife every night made Superman a much more unique character in the superhero world.

I think Superman would feel the loss of a world he never grew up on just as much as Supergirl ... just in a different way. In fact, the impact of the loss could potentially hit him even harder than Supergirl, it all depends on how you look at it.

Superman is still inspirational and can be looked up to by other heroes, even moreso, as an outsider. Why? Because his isolation demonstrates proof that no matter how bad a situation is, you can still use your powers for good, not evil. The marriage (and even the Kents alive) diminish this symbolism of hope because it suggests the notion that "all things are possible" that's not hope, that's false hope. Because hope and inspiration manifest from overcoming obstacles not from having everything on hand (awesome powers, awesome adoptive parents, awesome job, awesome marriage, etc) there HAS to be self-sacrifice ... and there has to be immediate proof of that self-sacrifice for dramatic impact.

Furthermore, he's the ultimate superhero, most of us would acknowledge that, it stands to reason he should have the ultimate obstacle to constantly deal with and the ultimate self-sacrifice for his heroism, namely his own personal happiness. That doesn't automatically mean that we feel sorry for him, quite the opposite, it means we can look up to him even more because we can see that he's constantly dealing with significant personal loss and pain and overcomes it by remaining good -- helping people rather than hurting them, protecting the world rather than ruling it.

I'm not opposed to superheroes being married or in a great relationship ... it's working wonderfully with Aquaman and Animal Man, much better than it did with Superman, so that particualr element of myth IS being spread around. But, MORE IMPORTANTLY, I think the alienated, outsider themes work better with Superman and it's good that his character is getting a chance to exhibit how those elements work with him ... so, again, some of that myth IS being spread around, as you suggest it should ... it's finally being spread over to Superman ... Yay!

Lastly, the married Superman got 15 years (20, if you count the engagement) in the continuity. I think it fair that the bachelor status (and with it elements of alientation, obviously) be given a good amount of time to run it's course.

[Sacred Knight]

I disagree that you can't be a leader and an introvert at the same time. When you're on the job, you lead, when you're not, when its your own time, you're in solitude. Not at all contradicting ideas.

So what is the arbitrary quota for damsels in distress?

I have no interest in semantics, I'm sure you have the reasoning skills to differentiate between three dimensional female characters and a generic female always in peril she is never able to get herself out of. Lois was the poster girl for that, but concentrated efforts have been made since the first Crisis reboot to get away from the characterization. A major step forward. If you wish she'd go back to that, hey different strokes I guess, but it'd stick out like a sore thumb today.

[SubjectDelta]

I disagree that you can't be a leader and an introvert at the same time. When you're on the job, you lead, when you're not, when its your own time, you're in solitude. Not at all contradicting ideas.


I have no interest in semantics, I'm sure you have the reasoning skills to differentiate between three dimensional female characters and a generic female always in peril she is never able to get herself out of. Lois was the poster girl for that, but concentrated efforts have been made since the first Crisis reboot to get away from the characterization. A major step forward. If you wish she'd go back to that, hey different strokes I guess, but it'd stick out like a sore thumb today.

If you can't see that Lois can be more yhan a damsel even though that's ome of her two main functions then obviously you are all about semantics. You don't even know what her role is other than some vague idea of her being "#1 cast member". Supes has probably saved her from trouble more than anyone else in his long history, if that doesn't put her in the role of damsel I don't know what does.

[Desaad]

Some of the best leaders in history were introverts.

http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_...ntroverts.html

[Mat001]

You can also say that some saw the marriage as basically "happily ever after". The end of the story. The relaunch is taking us back to the beginning with a modern setting.

Except the story doesn't end. The fifteen years of the marriage proved otherwise. Superman's life is the never ending battle. It only ends when he either dies or the universe is a much better place and doesn't need a Superman.

Considering both sets of parents were dead for 50 years before John Byrne decided to change things for no reason, it would more be like killing off Uncle Ben.

There was a reason for them to be alive. They were his family and from time to time, his guiding force. As well as his confidant and even on occasion, a tool to be used against him.

Probably, but you can't really say the kent being dead is really the same as Aunt May being dead, with one having actually been dead when first created and the other not.

Technically, the Kents weren't dead. I mean, they were still alive in the pages of the Superboy series. So they were both dead and alive at different points. Whereas Ben Parker has been dead for about fifty years now. And only regulated to flashbacks.

The heart of heroism is self-sacrifice. Superman has to be an outsider. He has to be alone. The last Kryptonian. The marriage to Lois was always a joke.

Why does the hero have to be alone? That doesn't make a lick of sense. Not now and not seventy years ago. Being an outsider, that's one thing. Being the last of his kind, that's another. But Loeb, Johns, Nicieza and Busiek demonstrated quite nicely that Clark can have feelings of and still be married. The best one being in Action Comics #850, when Jonathan explained to a young Clark the two types of family that exists. The one that you are born into and the one that you create. Which was then the center of that issue as we saw the highlights of Clark's life through when he married Lois and when Kara came into his life. Now, those four writers have their own opinions on the marriage, but at least when they were involved, they gave it their all.

Frankly, I think Superman being married made less sense and hurt the character infinitely more than Peter Parker's marriage ever could. Superman would probably be close to the last character that should be married. Once he's married, the outsider aspect (which is absolutely essential) to the character is destroyed; subsequently, by doing that, the entire character design falls in a heap.

First off, at the time Clark and Lois got married, he wasn't an outsider. That aspect had been played down for ten years at that point. And when it was brought back into the fold, we had "The Supergirl From Krypton", "Family", "Last Son" and "New Krypton".

But she's always been more than a love interest, she is a perfect damsel in distress

Really? I guess you didn't read "Funeral For A Friend" part 8, where she and one of the Hairies went to Cadmus to provide the distraction while Supergirl/Matrix recovered Clark's body? I guess you didn't read "Metropolis: Special Crimes Unit" where she trained with the SCU for a story and was able to take on an eco terrorist. I guess you didn't read how she survived an attempt on her life by Conduit during part two and three of "The Death Of Clark Kent". Or when she was able to take out one of the Alien Xenomorph's in "Superman Vs Aliens". Or when she had to rescue Clark on their honeymoon, while his powers were missing. Or when she journeyed with him to the Phantom Zone Krypton and survived being attacked by Zod and his crew. Or when she took out Lex Luthor, after learning that his plan to send Zod and his crew back, would result in Superman being sent back into the Zone as well.

Lois was never a damsel in distress in those stories.

So what is the arbitrary quota for damsels in distress?

There is no quota, because as noted, times have changed and Lois changed with them. It was even the subject of why she broke off their engagement in 1996. Sometimes she needed saving and sometimes she didn't. It was a lot different from 1963.

I think Superman would feel the loss of a world he never grew up on just as much as Supergirl ... just in a different way. In fact, the impact of the loss could potentially hit him even harder than Supergirl, it all depends on how you look at it.

Different writers over the years explored it. Byrne had initially had Clark not really care much for Krypton as demonstrated in MOS #6. But in "World Of Krypton" #4, after telling Lois the story of his homeworld and of his parents, he did shed some tears for the loss of what could have been. Right before "The Final Night", when Clark saw the rebuilt Fortress, he considered that he should've spent more time learning about his Kryptonian heritage. In "The Supergirl From Krypton", he lamented that he was alone, while arguing with Bruce about his confinement to the Fortress. In Action #850, we saw a conversation that Lois and Clark had after the wedding about having kids. Which then lead to Clark brooding on the matter. "Last Son" showed us how much he enjoyed having Chris in his life and the sadness that he could probably never have children of his own. "Brainiac", "New Krypton" and "World Of New Krypton" showed us how much he wanted to see and be a part of this world.

Superman is still inspirational and can be looked up to by other heroes, even moreso, as an outsider. Why? Because his isolation demonstrates proof that no matter how bad a situation is, you can still use your powers for good, not evil. The marriage (and even the Kents alive) diminish this symbolism of hope because it suggests the notion that "all things are possible" that's not hope, that's false hope. Because hope and inspiration manifest from overcoming obstacles not from having everything on hand (awesome powers, awesome adoptive parents, awesome job, awesome marriage, etc) there HAS to be self-sacrifice ... and there has to be immediate proof of that self-sacrifice for dramatic impact.

Furthermore, he's the ultimate superhero, most of us would acknowledge that, it stands to reason he should have the ultimate obstacle to constantly deal with and the ultimate self-sacrifice for his heroism, namely his own personal happiness. That doesn't automatically mean that we feel sorry for him, quite the opposite, it means we can look up to him even more because we can see that he's constantly dealing with significant personal loss and pain and overcomes it by remaining good -- helping people rather than hurting them, protecting the world rather than ruling it.

Which is again stupid. We don't ask people who do heroic things to give up their personal happiness. Nor expect them to deny themselves of it. It's insane. Yes, we accept when soldiers have to go off to war, but we do so because they do it for reasons of valor. But they still have their loved ones waiting at home. Their own personal happiness. There's no reason that Superman shouldn't have his. Those twenty years proved that time and again and he was not less of a hero for it.

If you can't see that Lois can be more yhan a damsel even though that's ome of her two main functions then obviously you are all about semantics. You don't even know what her role is other than some vague idea of her being "#1 cast member". Supes has probably saved her from trouble more than anyone else in his long history, if that doesn't put her in the role of damsel I don't know what does.

That's not what you said. You said that her role is damsel in distress. Sacred Knight said that hasn't been her role for years. Yes, he's saved her, but she's had to save him and didn't always need rescuing as she got herself out of danger on her own. That's been the point of the last twenty six years.

[Auguste Dupin]

-There was a reason for them to be alive. They were his family and from time to time, his guiding force. As well as his confidant and even on occasion, a tool to be used against him.



-Technically, the Kents weren't dead. I mean, they were still alive in the pages of the Superboy series. So they were both dead and alive at different points. Whereas Ben Parker has been dead for about fifty years now. And only regulated to flashbacks.

-Doesn't change my point. Complaining about retconning the Kent being alive (on the account of changing stuff for the sake of it) is a bit hypocritical considering keeping the Kent alive was a change for the sake of it in the first place. They may have been every thing you said they were, but Superman before Byrne was "just fine" even with his parents being dead, it wasn't something that was needed or anything. So it's not like it was an unchageable piece of the mythology, like him being from Krypton since, y'know, it did change, they were dead for a longer than they were alive, and most versions kill at least one of them (the Movie, Smallville, Earth one....).

-Considering Superboy is a giant flashback... Doesn't change the fact that in Superman, they were dead and burried. They died at some point, it just happenend that Superboy was before that point.

[Mat001]

-Considering Superboy is a giant flashback... Doesn't change the fact that in Superman, they were dead and burried. They died at some point, it just happenend that Superboy was before that point.

I never said it didn't. My point was there were alive in the Superboy series almost as long as they were dead in the Superman titles, in terms of publication history. The Kents were never truly gone. Unlike Bucky, Jason Todd or Richard and Mary Parker. So the idea of shifting the Kents over to the Superman titles and having them be alive, wasn't as dramatic a shift as those other resurrections and retcons.

[Auguste Dupin]

I never said it didn't. My point was there were alive in the Superboy series almost as long as they were dead in the Superman titles, in terms of publication history. The Kents were never truly gone. Unlike Bucky, Jason Todd or Richard and Mary Parker. So the idea of shifting the Kents over to the Superman titles and having them be alive, wasn't as dramatic a shift as those other resurrections and retcons.

It was still a pretty big change in the story. The death of his parents is a lesson of humility for Superman, it teaches him that even he can't save every one, do every thing he wants. It was an event he had to overcome, which is what heroes do. The death of the parents is a part of the Hero's Journey in mythological stories, and I always thought Superman was the most mythological superhero, even above those who are actually based on mythology. It's all part of a Journey he takes, and the end of the journey is him becoming Superman (and not Superboy).
It's like when people say Superman's story isn't supposed to have tragedy in it. His planet blew up, and he's more or less the last survivor of his race. Of course his story has tragedy. What makes Superman a positive hero is the fact he overcomes it, not the fact there isn't any. It's not because Batman decided tragedy was cool that Superman can't have any. He was there first.

[CagedLeo730]

Except the story doesn't end. The fifteen years of the marriage proved otherwise. Superman's life is the never ending battle. It only ends when he either dies or the universe is a much better place and doesn't need a Superman.

The story of their relationship pretty much ended. There were no more memorable stories of their relationship. Superman's adventures continued on but the marriage was nothing special. To me only the issues with Chris Kent showed any marriage emphasis (focus on having a baby or adopting)

[timeismoney]

I love all the hate Tom got for talking about taking away Sups marriage when DC would go on to do so a few months later comic fan are such a joke.

[carabas]

I love all the hate Tom got for talking about taking away Sups marriage when DC would go on to do so a few months later comic fan are such a joke.

Quesada got the hate, and he mostly got that hate not for what he did, but for the unbelievably inept, dumb way in which he did it.

[J. Robb]

Furthermore, he's the ultimate superhero, most of us would acknowledge that, it stands to reason he should have the ultimate obstacle to constantly deal with and the ultimate self-sacrifice for his heroism, namely his own personal happiness. That doesn't automatically mean that we feel sorry for him, quite the opposite, it means we can look up to him even more because we can see that he's constantly dealing with significant personal loss and pain and overcomes it by remaining good -- helping people rather than hurting them, protecting the world rather than ruling it.

I don't think Superman sacrifices his happiness. Some people even (mostly joking) call him selfish for spending time as Clark Kent. He's happy as a regular joe, and also happy to use his powers as Superman to help others. The burden of "great responsibility" was an imperfection to set Spider-Man (and others) apart from Superman, to show how they don't quite measure up to the ultimate hero. I know the idea of a just plain good person is considered dull by many, and it scares the crap out of most writers (almost as much as writing women), but I don't really care. I say- hire better writers.

[davidgrantlloyd]

I don't think Superman sacrifices his happiness. Some people even (mostly joking) call him selfish for spending time as Clark Kent. He's happy as a regular joe, and also happy to use his powers as Superman to help others. The burden of "great responsibility" was an imperfection to set Spider-Man (and others) apart from Superman, to show how they don't quite measure up to the ultimate hero. I know the idea of a just plain good person is considered dull by many, and it scares the crap out of most writers (almost as much as writing women), but I don't really care. I say- hire better writers.

Obviously this issue will always divide the Superman fanbase. But, with respect, it's quite arrogant and naive to simply blame the writers. It's not that simple. And writing is a darn difficult job even if you're good at it. If an idea is dull and boring (such as the retro design of Superman's character) then there's no amount of talent that can make it interesting ... save maybe half a dozen stories (at best) ... the only way to fix it is to rebuild. DC are now doing that (thank goodness!) and hopefully it'll last a good long time (like the boring marriage to Lois did) to explore all the facets of potential drama and adventure. As I suggested, fans of the Pre-New 52 era got 15-20 years of the married boy scout. It's only fair that this incarnation of the character be given an adequate amount of time too.

[davidgrantlloyd]

Why does the hero have to be alone? That doesn't make a lick of sense. Not now and not seventy years ago. Being an outsider, that's one thing. Being the last of his kind, that's another. But Loeb, Johns, Nicieza and Busiek demonstrated quite nicely that Clark can have feelings of and still be married. The best one being in Action Comics #850, when Jonathan explained to a young Clark the two types of family that exists. The one that you are born into and the one that you create. Which was then the center of that issue as we saw the highlights of Clark's life through when he married Lois and when Kara came into his life. Now, those four writers have their own opinions on the marriage, but at least when they were involved, they gave it their all.



Which is again stupid. We don't ask people who do heroic things to give up their personal happiness. Nor expect them to deny themselves of it. It's insane. Yes, we accept when soldiers have to go off to war, but we do so because they do it for reasons of valor. But they still have their loved ones waiting at home. Their own personal happiness. There's no reason that Superman shouldn't have his. Those twenty years proved that time and again and he was not less of a hero for it.

"Why does the hero have to be alone?" It depends on the hero. Superman is a very global hero, epic even. It's there in his origin ... he lost his world, his motive is this world, ensuring he (and indeed we all don't lose it), such a monumental situation ... it stands to reason it take up a monumental amount of time and effort, he would never have time for marriage because the world comes first ... in many ways he's married to the world. To me, that just has a more apporpriate, dramatic and interesting sense of heroism for Superman.



Incidentally, not to get on my high horse or anything but just becuase an opinion and/or taste differs from another doesn't automatically label either side of the debate as "stupid" or "insane". I see what you're saying about soldiers and valor, and still having personal happiness, etc I dig it. But I think there is a reason Superman shouldn't have this. And, yes, I've mentioned it before (heroism, self-sacrifice, etc) and it is NOT because I'm implying it makes him "less of a hero", as you suggest, but it IS because it makes him less interesting.

Obviously, this is ultimately what it comes down to. What type of Superman do you find more interesting to read about. There are those who prefer the Pre New 52 status quo, there are those who prefer the current one. We can offer arguments, and "evidence" (such as it is) to support our opinion but at the end of the day we each have our own personal tastes. And as I've said before, Pre New 52 fans got about 2 decades of their preferred status quo, it's time for a fresh perspective. If the Pre New 52 status quo was bringing in new readership, it never would've been axed. I think this new status quo has a much chance of increasing the fan base.