Scott Snyder loves Superman IV and Talks About His New Superman Book

[Coyote2010]

I'm so glad the New 52 has chilled out with the "Oh he's a farmboy at heart" crap. I was re-reading Joe Kelly's JLA and there's a scene where they're all in a telepathic realm conversing so they're dressed symbolically, and you see Clark wearing overalls + cape. This is the kind of stuff that makes Superman look lame.

That was hamfisted for sure, I don't mind him being a farm boy, but to say that's all he is, ain't right.

I like the Super Scientist mixed in.

[Kurosawa]

What is wrong with referring to Superman by his human name -- the name he grew up with, the name his adoptive parents gave him, the name of the man Superman loves like a beloved friend, Superman's true name? Kal is Clark's birth name, but he is Clark. "Smallville" is a nickname Lois gives Clark like a soldier gives a brother in arms. It fits Clark in every age because there's always a touch of Midwestern small town to him. It's almost always used affectionately despite starting out as a hazing term.

Since I am a classic Superman fan, "Clark Kent" was an act and a cover name almost from the start. It doesn't mean he didn't love Ma and Pa, but that Clark is not the precious Lil Abner Clark that most Post-Crisis people think of him as. That Clark was the same as "Metropolis Clark" just younger. There was no "Smallville Clark" Pre-Crisis. There was Clark Kent and there was Superboy/Superman. That Superman never thought as himself as Clark Kent. He just didn't.

I'm so glad the New 52 has chilled out with the "Oh he's a farmboy at heart" crap. I was re-reading Joe Kelly's JLA and there's a scene where they're all in a telepathic realm conversing so they're dressed symbolically, and you see Clark wearing overalls + cape. This is the kind of stuff that makes Superman look lame.

I hated that crap. That, him running home to mommy and daddy for pie and advice and the perfect home, marriage and life with no soul, suffering or pathos-I can understand how people hated Superman from all of that. So glad they got rid of it, and I hope it never comes back.

[misslane38]

You are talking about a completely different Superman.

Am I? Superman has always been raised as Clark Kent and lives half of his life as Clark Kent. Half of the people he cares about call him Clark Kent. He loves Clark Kent. This has been true of ALL incarnations of the character.

I'm so glad the New 52 has chilled out with the "Oh he's a farmboy at heart" crap. I was re-reading Joe Kelly's JLA and there's a scene where they're all in a telepathic realm conversing so they're dressed symbolically, and you see Clark wearing overalls + cape. This is the kind of stuff that makes Superman look lame.

How did we go from discussing how Superman is Clark Kent and Clark Kent is Superman to assuming that calling him Clark means he's just a farmboy hick from Smallville?

Since I am a classic Superman fan, "Clark Kent" was an act and a cover name almost from the start. It doesn't mean he didn't love Ma and Pa, but that Clark is not the precious Lil Abner Clark that most Post-Crisis people think of him as. That Clark was the same as "Metropolis Clark" just younger. There was no "Smallville Clark" Pre-Crisis. There was Clark Kent and there was Superboy/Superman. That Superman never thought as himself as Clark Kent. He just didn't.

What on Earth are you talking about? The fact that Superman is also called Clark Kent is a fact and not a roundabout way for me or anyone else to paint him as "Lil Abner." Superman is a name that is not even his real name. It's a title that was not given to Clark at birth. Superman is an adopted name. Clark Kent is an adopted name. Kal-El is a birth name, but it is not a name that encompasses all of who he is. Superman is Clark. Clark is Superman. Clark is Kal-El. Superman is Kal-El. They are all just names attached to the same man. So if Snyder wants to call Superman "Clark," then what's the problem? That's what his human friends call him, after all. Superman may not have thought of himself as being exclusively Clark Kent, but it was not a name he would not answer to and it was certainly a name he loved. He would not in any way, shape, or form be as appalled at being called Clark as you seem to be at the thought.

I hated that crap. That, him running home to mommy and daddy for pie and advice and the perfect home, marriage and life with no soul, suffering or pathos-I can understand how people hated Superman from all of that. So glad they got rid of all that, and I hope it never comes back.

Having pie with mom and dad, and having a wife makes a man soulless? Are you f-ing kidding me? Suffering? Superman lost whole worlds full of his kin in the Post-Crisis era. He lost his father to a heart attack. His identity was uncovered and his loved ones were attacked one by one. Even though he had a wife, he was barely able to spend time with her. He could never have children, yet when he finally adopted a son, he was lost forever in the Phantom Zone. Post-Crisis Superman suffered because he allowed himself to become connected to people -- he got emotionally involved. Love, connections, and having people in your life like parents, a wife, friends, and co-workers you care about as a man not just a Superman gives you more happiness but also more to lose. Superman during the Pre-Crisis era was an emotional coward who never truly got close to anyone.

[stk]

Am I? Superman has always been raised as Clark Kent and lives half of his life as Clark Kent. Half of the people he cares about call him Clark Kent. He loves Clark Kent. This has been true of ALL incarnations of the character.

And yet the effect is different. Partly because that version was aware of his heritage and embraced it. He was a toddler on Krypton and had memories of Krypton. He had a Kryptonian pet and friends from any number of other planets. He didn't have the secluded farm boy youth you describe, and no one ever called him "Smallville."

[misslane38]

And yet the effect is different. Partly because that version was aware of his heritage and embraced it. He was a toddler on Krypton and had memories of Krypton. He had a Kryptonian pet and friends from any number of other planets. He didn't have the secluded farm boy youth you describe, and no one ever called him "Smallville."

The point I was making about the "Smallville" was a completely separate discussion. It's about Lois Lane's initial impression of Clark and not a true reflection of who is always is. I didn't describe any sort of secluded farmboy youth, so I don't know where that idea is coming from, to be honest. If Superman can see himself as Kal because he remembers parts of his childhood on Krypton, then surely the same logic applies to his years as a boy in Smallville as Jonathan and Martha Kent's son. Why he would privilege his earliest memories and birth parents over the place and people who accepted and nurtured him on Earth is a mystery to me. Superman, in my opinion, would be as fine with being called Clark as he would being called Kal or Superman.

[stk]

The point I was making about the "Smallville" was a completely separate discussion. It's about Lois Lane's initial impression of Clark and not a true reflection of who is always is. I didn't describe any sort of secluded farmboy youth, so I don't know where that idea is coming from, to be honest. If Superman can see himself as Kal because he remembers parts of his childhood on Krypton, then surely the same logic applies to his years as a boy in Smallville as Jonathan and Martha Kent's son. Why he would privilege his earliest memories and birth parents over the place and people who accepted and nurtured him on Earth is a mystery to me. Superman, in my opinion, would be as fine with being called Clark as he would being called Kal or Superman.

You are talking about what you think would happen. I'm trying to tell you what DID happen. The comics have been published. They are out there to read. You are talking about a certain set of circumstances, not all of which apply to the Silver/Bronze Age Superman. Which also includes that era's Lois.

[Kurosawa]

Am I? Superman has always been raised as Clark Kent and lives half of his life as Clark Kent. Half of the people he cares about call him Clark Kent. He loves Clark Kent. This has been true of ALL incarnations of the character.

He lives half his life as Clark, yes. He loves Clark, yes. But he is not Clark, because Clark is a character he created. In Pre-Crisis, he was pretending to be meek and mild-mannered as Clark before he was ten years old. Clark Kent was an act almost from the start. On Earth-One, anyway. Now, on Earth-Two, he was different and I can see that Superman thinking of himself as Clark Kent and being addressed as Clark more, because he didn't even know he was from Krypton until 1949 or so.

How did we go from discussing how Superman is Clark Kent and Clark Kent is Superman to assuming that calling him Clark means he's just a farmboy hick from Smallville? What on Earth are you talking about? The fact that Superman is also called Clark Kent is a fact and not a roundabout way for me or anyone else to paint him as "Lil Abner." Superman is a name that is not even his real name. It's a title that was not given to Clark at birth. Superman is an adopted name. Clark Kent is an adopted name. Kal-El is a birth name, but it is not a name that encompasses all of who he is. Superman is Clark. Clark is Superman. Clark is Kal-El. Superman is Kal-El. They are all just names attached to the same man. So if Snyder wants to call Superman "Clark," then what's the problem? That's what his human friends call him, after all. Superman may not have thought of himself as being exclusively Clark Kent, but it was not a name he would not answer to and it was certainly a name he loved. He would not in any way, shape, or form be as appalled at being called Clark as you seem to be at the thought.

When I see someone call Superman Clark, that just tells me that they don't know enough about the character to know that Clark Kent and Superman are two completely different characters, and that Superman (Clark's creator) regards them as such.

Clark Kent is Superman's demon—I said that specifically in the second book. I've always thought of him that way. Superman is the real person and Clark is the construct. Clark is a brilliant character and the creation of Superman. My take on Clark is a lot like what Chris Reeve said Clark was when he did the first movie: "Either Superman is a consummate actor or Lois Lane is an idiot. I don't want Lois to be an idiot, so Superman must be a good actor."
Everybody has a demon, everybody has a hobby, a habit that is part of his character and he can't break. Superman's is Clark. Mine is writing, Bill Clinton's is the saxophone, Jimmy Carter had to teach Sunday School, even when he was president. Luthor's demon is Superman. Superman needs Clark the way most of us need dreams.

I think the idea that Clark is the real character and Superman is a device is completely wrong-headed—because at some point, Clark has to die... and probably Superman won't, at least not permanently. I did a prose story for Martin Greenberg, for one of the anthologies he's putting together, that explores the triangle among Clark, Lois and Superman, over the course of about 150 years. Lois lives to be about 125 in my continuity and Luthor lives another 50. Superman tells the story hundreds of years in the future, as a great grey eminence flying through space, looking for a world to live in. It's the Superman/Lois love story... and Clark is an addendum to it. I think that's the way it is. Clark is there to make Superman accessible. Not the other way around.

I agree with Maggin about Superman and Clark Kent. That's the way I see it, the way I like it and the way I find it most interesting and unique.

Having pie with mom and dad, and having a wife makes a man soulless? Are you f-ing kidding me? Suffering? Superman lost whole worlds full of his kin in the Post-Crisis era. He lost his father to a heart attack. His identity was uncovered and his loved ones were attacked one by one. Even though he had a wife, he was barely able to spend time with her. He could never have children, yet when he finally adopted a son, he was lost forever in the Phantom Zone. Post-Crisis Superman suffered because he allowed himself to become connected to people -- he got emotionally involved. Love, connections, and having people in your life like parents, a wife, friends, and co-workers you care about as a man not just a Superman gives you more happiness but also more to lose. Superman during the Pre-Crisis era was an emotional coward who never truly got close to anyone.

Yeah, but for years he lost nothing and Batman even told him that when Pa Kent died-that he had never really lost anyone he loved before. I find a grown man with everything in his life being ideal and no pain or suffering hard to care about. Of course, the Superman who lost Pa Kent in the whole New Krypton thing wasn't the Post-Crisis or Iron Age Superman anyway, he was Mercury Age or Flux II Superman, as his history had been changed and rebooted 4 times since Byrne's reboot-Zero Hour, Birthright, Superman 650, and Secret Origin. I was actually kinda enjoying the books after JMS left Grounded to be honest. Having some real pain in his life made him act more like the Superman I cared about.

And yes, Pre-Crisis he was something of an emotional coward, and he did keep those he loved at a distance. That's good. That gives him some humanity and some flaws. I feel that made him a more complex and three dimensional character-he was easy to love for those who knew him, but he was hard to know. He kept everyone at a distance because he had felt the pain of loss many times before-Krypton, and even worse, Ma and Pa Kent, who he watched die and knowing that even his great powers couldn't save them. And he knew that unless one of his enemies were to kill him, that he will have to see all those he loves-Lois, Lana, Batman, Jimmy, and Lex-grow old and die. To me, that's a compelling character.

And yet the effect is different. Partly because that version was aware of his heritage and embraced it. He was a toddler on Krypton and had memories of Krypton. He had a Kryptonian pet and friends from any number of other planets. He didn't have the secluded farm boy youth you describe, and no one ever called him "Smallville."

Yep, and he didn't grow up on the farm either, really-by the time he was Superboy they had moved into town and Pa had the General Store. He was less a farmboy and more a product of small town Americana. The farmer part was really just a footnote and a small part of the origin until STM-it was there before, but it hadn't been important for a long time.

The point I was making about the "Smallville" was a completely separate discussion. It's about Lois Lane's initial impression of Clark and not a true reflection of who is always is. I didn't describe any sort of secluded farmboy youth, so I don't know where that idea is coming from, to be honest. If Superman can see himself as Kal because he remembers parts of his childhood on Krypton, then surely the same logic applies to his years as a boy in Smallville as Jonathan and Martha Kent's son. Why he would privilege his earliest memories and birth parents over the place and people who accepted and nurtured him on Earth is a mystery to me. Superman, in my opinion, would be as fine with being called Clark as he would being called Kal or Superman.

Pre-Crisis Lois never judged Clark as a hick from a small town because she had that same background-her parents were horse farmers from Iowa. As for the other part, that version had created the nebbish Clark at a much younger age, although of course Ma and Pa called him Clark-the Clark they knew and raised was the only Clark Kent that was ever real for that Superman. They were the only people who knew the real him when he was a child, and that Clark Kent-the REAL Clark, not the mild mannered Clark-died when they died because he had no one to share his secrets and the reality of his life with. From then on, there was only Superman and the Clark that he (and they) had created. The pain of their loss and his inability to save them may be part of why he distanced himself from Clark Kent and started treating him more as a fiction than ever. It's also, as I said before, where a lot of his tendency to distance himself from those he loved started. He already had massive survivor's guilt from Krypton's destruction, then his parents die and he fails to save them-and he was never quite the same, as Lois noted in Action #500.

[Auguste Dupin]

I'm so glad the New 52 has chilled out with the "Oh he's a farmboy at heart" crap. I was re-reading Joe Kelly's JLA and there's a scene where they're all in a telepathic realm conversing so they're dressed symbolically, and you see Clark wearing overalls + cape. This is the kind of stuff that makes Superman look lame.

Always felt oversimplistic to me, to be honest. I mean, who would even think of saying Batman is "a urban kid" at heart? That's silly, nobody would believe it explains a thing about the character, or that it even mean something. Same for "farmboy". What is that supposed to mean?
Not to mention how it implies that people who lives in the country all have somehow the same mentality. That's stupid. My family lives in the country, I lived there for 20 years and I still spend quite some time there, and I have no idea of the signification of being a "farmboy at heart", and I know real farmers.

[Van Cleaf]

Well, misslan38, theoretically there isn't really anything wrong with calling Superman "Clark". The problem is that, as experience has shown, people who refer to him that way have a very specific (wrong) view of Superman which translates into "farmboy", "Superman Is What I Do, Clark Kent Is Who I Am" and that stuff that plagued us since 1986.

[Namtab]

He lives half his life as Clark, yes. He loves Clark, yes. But he is not Clark, because Clark is a character he created. In Pre-Crisis, he was pretending to be meek and mild-mannered as Clark before he was ten years old. Clark Kent was an act almost from the start. On Earth-One, anyway. Now, on Earth-Two, he was different and I can see that Superman thinking of himself as Clark Kent and being addressed as Clark more, because he didn't even know he was from Krypton until 1949 or so.

When I see someone call Superman Clark, that just tells me that they don't know enough about the character to know that Clark Kent and Superman are two completely different characters, and that Superman (Clark's creator) regards them as such.

I agree with Maggin about Superman and Clark Kent. That's the way I see it, the way I like it and the way I find it most interesting and unique.

Yeah, but for years he lost nothing and Batman even told him that when Pa Kent died-that he had never really lost anyone he loved before. I find a grown man with everything in his life being ideal and no pain or suffering hard to care about. Of course, the Superman who lost Pa Kent in the whole New Krypton thing wasn't the Post-Crisis or Iron Age Superman anyway, he was Mercury Age or Flux II Superman, as his history had been changed and rebooted 4 times since Byrne's reboot-Zero Hour, Birthright, Superman 650, and Secret Origin. I was actually kinda enjoying the books after JMS left Grounded to be honest. Having some real pain in his life made him act more like the Superman I cared about.

And yes, Pre-Crisis he was something of an emotional coward, and he did keep those he loved at a distance. That's good. That gives him some humanity and some flaws. I feel that made him a more complex and three dimensional character-he was easy to love for those who knew him, but he was hard to know. He kept everyone at a distance because he had felt the pain of loss many times before-Krypton, and even worse, Ma and Pa Kent, who he watched die and knowing that even his great powers couldn't save them. And he knew that unless one of his enemies were to kill him, that he will have to see all those he loves-Lois, Lana, Batman, Jimmy, and Lex-grow old and die. To me, that's a compelling character.

Yep, and he didn't grow up on the farm either, really-by the time he was Superboy they had moved into town and Pa had the General Store. He was less a farmboy and more a product of small town Americana. The farmer part was really just a footnote and a small part of the origin until STM-it was there before, but it hadn't been important for a long time.

Pre-Crisis Lois never judged Clark as a hick from a small town because she had that same background-her parents were horse farmers from Iowa. As for the other part, that version had created the nebbish Clark at a much younger age, although of course Ma and Pa called him Clark-the Clark they knew and raised was the only Clark Kent that was ever real for that Superman. They were the only people who knew the real him when he was a child, and that Clark Kent-the REAL Clark, not the mild mannered Clark-died when they died because he had no one to share his secrets and the reality of his life with. From then on, there was only Superman and the Clark that he (and they) had created. The pain of their loss and his inability to save them may be part of why he distanced himself from Clark Kent and started treating him more as a fiction than ever. It's also, as I said before, where a lot of his tendency to distance himself from those he loved started. He already had massive survivor's guilt from Krypton's destruction, then his parents die and he fails to save them-and he was never quite the same, as Lois noted in Action #500.

Wow, I did not know any of this.

I really need to read some of Maggin's work, and probably some of Pre-Crisis Supes, in general.

[Lexrules]

He lives half his life as Clark, yes. He loves Clark, yes. But he is not Clark, because Clark is a character he created. In Pre-Crisis, he was pretending to be meek and mild-mannered as Clark before he was ten years old. Clark Kent was an act almost from the start. On Earth-One, anyway. Now, on Earth-Two, he was different and I can see that Superman thinking of himself as Clark Kent and being addressed as Clark more, because he didn't even know he was from Krypton until 1949 or so.



When I see someone call Superman Clark, that just tells me that they don't know enough about the character to know that Clark Kent and Superman are two completely different characters, and that Superman (Clark's creator) regards them as such.



I agree with Maggin about Superman and Clark Kent. That's the way I see it, the way I like it and the way I find it most interesting and unique.



Yeah, but for years he lost nothing and Batman even told him that when Pa Kent died-that he had never really lost anyone he loved before. I find a grown man with everything in his life being ideal and no pain or suffering hard to care about. Of course, the Superman who lost Pa Kent in the whole New Krypton thing wasn't the Post-Crisis or Iron Age Superman anyway, he was Mercury Age or Flux II Superman, as his history had been changed and rebooted 4 times since Byrne's reboot-Zero Hour, Birthright, Superman 650, and Secret Origin. I was actually kinda enjoying the books after JMS left Grounded to be honest. Having some real pain in his life made him act more like the Superman I cared about.

And yes, Pre-Crisis he was something of an emotional coward, and he did keep those he loved at a distance. That's good. That gives him some humanity and some flaws. I feel that made him a more complex and three dimensional character-he was easy to love for those who knew him, but he was hard to know. He kept everyone at a distance because he had felt the pain of loss many times before-Krypton, and even worse, Ma and Pa Kent, who he watched die and knowing that even his great powers couldn't save them. And he knew that unless one of his enemies were to kill him, that he will have to see all those he loves-Lois, Lana, Batman, Jimmy, and Lex-grow old and die. To me, that's a compelling character.



Yep, and he didn't grow up on the farm either, really-by the time he was Superboy they had moved into town and Pa had the General Store. He was less a farmboy and more a product of small town Americana. The farmer part was really just a footnote and a small part of the origin until STM-it was there before, but it hadn't been important for a long time.



Pre-Crisis Lois never judged Clark as a hick from a small town because she had that same background-her parents were horse farmers from Iowa. As for the other part, that version had created the nebbish Clark at a much younger age, although of course Ma and Pa called him Clark-the Clark they knew and raised was the only Clark Kent that was ever real for that Superman. They were the only people who knew the real him when he was a child, and that Clark Kent-the REAL Clark, not the mild mannered Clark-died when they died because he had no one to share his secrets and the reality of his life with. From then on, there was only Superman and the Clark that he (and they) had created. The pain of their loss and his inability to save them may be part of why he distanced himself from Clark Kent and started treating him more as a fiction than ever. It's also, as I said before, where a lot of his tendency to distance himself from those he loved started. He already had massive survivor's guilt from Krypton's destruction, then his parents die and he fails to save them-and he was never quite the same, as Lois noted in Action #500.

Outstanding post.

[greatmetropolitan]

The personality we see when he's in costume about 90% of his true personality, with a few tweaks here and there for secrecy and for being "on duty". The personality when he's in the glasses is a construct to allow him a life, and his privacy.

But the man refers to himself as Clark. It's his name. He just can't use it when he's being himself ie in costume.

[Surtur]

Loves Superman IV? Might as well admit to loving Satan.

[misslane38]

You are talking about what you think would happen. I'm trying to tell you what DID happen. The comics have been published. They are out there to read. You are talking about a certain set of circumstances, not all of which apply to the Silver/Bronze Age Superman. Which also includes that era's Lois.

The discussion of Lois is a separate discussion. It was mentioned that the "Smallville" nickname is unappealing, which is only part of the Post-Crisis era. I'm explaining why it worked in that context. The discussion of the Clark/Superman/Kal name is a discussion about what makes sense in the contexts mentioned. I understand what the actual Pre-Crisis dynamic was with regards to Superman's name and identity. What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense for Superman to privilege Kal over Clark. Furthermore, this whole conversation is about Snyder calling his Superman "Clark," and his Superman in not in the past. It is possible, you know, that Snyder has his own unique spin on Superman's identity and relationship with his human alter ego that is neither Post-Crisis farmboy or Pre-Crisis mask.

He lives half his life as Clark, yes. He loves Clark, yes. But he is not Clark, because Clark is a character he created. In Pre-Crisis, he was pretending to be meek and mild-mannered as Clark before he was ten years old. Clark Kent was an act almost from the start. On Earth-One, anyway. Now, on Earth-Two, he was different and I can see that Superman thinking of himself as Clark Kent and being addressed as Clark more, because he didn't even know he was from Krypton until 1949 or so.

Clark is a character Superman created, and he lives half of his life as this character he created. The name is his and it is a name of a man he loves whether it is a mask or not.

When I see someone call Superman Clark, that just tells me that they don't know enough about the character to know that Clark Kent and Superman are two completely different characters, and that Superman (Clark's creator) regards them as such.

But that's BS. Snyder is writing Clark/Superman in the New 52. He's talking about his Superman not historical Superman. Snyder isn't talking about Pre-Crisis Superman, so he's not getting his facts wrong. The only time I call Superman "Clark" is when I'm referring to the other side of his dual identity (i.e. his relationships and life as Clark Kent) or when I'm referring to him the way he sees himself in a particular continuity. So, I'll call him Clark in Post-Crisis continuity and I'll call him Clark in the New 52 because so far it doesn't seem like Superman's relationship with Clark is quite as bifurcated as it was in the Silver Age.

I agree with Maggin about Superman and Clark Kent. That's the way I see it, the way I like it and the way I find it most interesting and unique.

I find it troubling, to be honest. The idea that Superman -- the greatest hero that ever lived -- essentially has two distinct personalities and one is just a hobby like golf is odd and disconcerting. I believe Superman should be a Super Man. He should see himself as both Super and a Man, or at the very least he would not discard his entire formative years as only worthwhile in creating a mask. If the Kents moral guidance helped shaped the hero Superman becomes, then there is some Clark Kent in Superman. For Superman to see Clark as a thing outside of himself is too strange and makes the character truly alien.

Yeah, but for years he lost nothing and Batman even told him that when Pa Kent died-that he had never really lost anyone he loved before. I find a grown man with everything in his life being ideal and no pain or suffering hard to care about. Of course, the Superman who lost Pa Kent in the whole New Krypton thing wasn't the Post-Crisis or Iron Age Superman anyway, he was Mercury Age or Flux II Superman, as his history had been changed and rebooted 4 times since Byrne's reboot-Zero Hour, Birthright, Superman 650, and Secret Origin. I was actually kinda enjoying the books after JMS left Grounded to be honest. Having some real pain in his life made him act more like the Superman I cared about.

Please. Pre-Crisis Superman only suffered in his youth when he lost his parents. All of his other "suffering" was self-imposed. He was a coward, so he never made the connections that would expose him to emotional risks. As you keep saying, the Silver Age Superman was a lighthearted and upbeat fellow who was hardly ever emo or brooding. If he suffered or was deeply troubled on an emotional level, it was a rare occurrence indeed. The "real pain" you yearned for in the Pre-Flashpoint era was not ever present in the Pre-Crisis era. It is disingenuous, in my opinion, to paint that era's Superman as a suffering figure. He lost his home planet and his adoptive parents at a young age, and that was pretty much the end of his suffering.

And yes, Pre-Crisis he was something of an emotional coward, and he did keep those he loved at a distance. That's good. That gives him some humanity and some flaws. I feel that made him a more complex and three dimensional character-he was easy to love for those who knew him, but he was hard to know. He kept everyone at a distance because he had felt the pain of loss many times before-Krypton, and even worse, Ma and Pa Kent, who he watched die and knowing that even his great powers couldn't save them. And he knew that unless one of his enemies were to kill him, that he will have to see all those he loves-Lois, Lana, Batman, Jimmy, and Lex-grow old and die. To me, that's a compelling character.

I don't find emotional cowards who never grow or change to be compelling characters. Flaws are interesting, but Peter Pan man-children are not. Superman's fear about his enemies hurting his loved ones was always so ridiculous for two reasons: those people were already frequently targets of villains and those people would be protected as long as Superman got closer to them as Clark Kent. Moore touched on this in his "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?" Post-Crisis Superman had to cope with the same fears, but he overcame them. And there were times where he questioned his decision (e.g. when Emil Hamilton's Ruin and Manchester Black discovered Superman's human identity and began attacking the people he loved). Superman is a hero who should live in hope. For him to not apply the same philosophy to his personal life is sad and unappealing.

Pre-Crisis Lois never judged Clark as a hick from a small town because she had that same background-her parents were horse farmers from Iowa.

For heaven's sake, I know that. We were talking about the Post-Crisis Lois who called Clark "Smallville," so of course I'm not referring to any other version of the character besides that one.

As for the other part, that version had created the nebbish Clark at a much younger age, although of course Ma and Pa called him Clark-the Clark they knew and raised was the only Clark Kent that was ever real for that Superman. They were the only people who knew the real him when he was a child, and that Clark Kent-the REAL Clark, not the mild mannered Clark-died when they died because he had no one to share his secrets and the reality of his life with. From then on, there was only Superman and the Clark that he (and they) had created. The pain of their loss and his inability to save them may be part of why he distanced himself from Clark Kent and started treating him more as a fiction than ever. It's also, as I said before, where a lot of his tendency to distance himself from those he loved started. He already had massive survivor's guilt from Krypton's destruction, then his parents die and he fails to save them-and he was never quite the same, as Lois noted in Action #500.

And, personally, I find the fact that Superman distanced himself from his human parents, past, and identity just because he had issues with loss to be quite scary. Superman should not disconnect himself from his own humanity because of fear and grief. That sort of reaction makes sense in the immediate aftermath of a loss. Yet to have loss trigger a habitual pattern of distancing himself from love or other human connections, including connecting with the memory of a humanized version of one's self, is troubling behavior for a Superman.

Well, misslan38, theoretically there isn't really anything wrong with calling Superman "Clark". The problem is that, as experience has shown, people who refer to him that way have a very specific (wrong) view of Superman which translates into "farmboy", "Superman Is What I Do, Clark Kent Is Who I Am" and that stuff that plagued us since 1986.

Until we see actual evidence that this is how Snyder views the Superman/Clark identity, I think it is foolish to assume that is what he intends to communicate by using one name more than the other.

[King Krypton]

Loves Superman IV? Might as well admit to loving Satan.

Or perhaps he just enjoys bad movies for their camp value? Many people do.

Comments like this only show fans (a) have no sense of humor, (b) take meaningless things far too seriously, and (c) need to loosen up pronto.