A Comic Virgins Review: Allstar Superman
- Thread starter Supernova
- Start date
I think a thread like this is very instructive. In terms of the difficulty of pleasing Superman fans when it comes to the movies.
When people refer to the "modern" or "current" version of the character as based on John Byrne's work which is 20 years old. Or an animated series which debuted a decade ago. Geoff Johns' or Grant Morrison's "new" ideas which date back to the 60's and 70s. Or Bryan Singer's film which was nostalgic for a 30 year old film.
It seems equal to debating over differences in personal holiday traditions. As if there is a consensus"that the rest are ignoring.
When people refer to the "modern" or "current" version of the character as based on John Byrne's work which is 20 years old. Or an animated series which debuted a decade ago. Geoff Johns' or Grant Morrison's "new" ideas which date back to the 60's and 70s. Or Bryan Singer's film which was nostalgic for a 30 year old film.
It seems equal to debating over differences in personal holiday traditions. As if there is a consensus"that the rest are ignoring.
Okay, fine then. Last Son, Legion, and Brainiac are still vastly superior to All-Star Superman, based not on issues of continuity, but rather, these: 1-superior art that doesn't feature often ugly faces and odd proportions 2-writing that isn't attempting to be "hip" or "cutting edge" by using "high-concepts" that will "elevate" the material "above the comic book medium" 3-writing that is strong, character-driven, and respectful of the legacy of Superman himself, not one version from one time period, but instead, the unities of the character himself. 4-a writer who has stated in interviews that he doesn't seek to make Superman "cool," but rather, to showcase what is cool about Superman. 5-art that has already been compared to the master, Curt Swan
Moreover, Superman through Clark Kent can nab Luthor by using his journalistic writings as seen at the end of Birthright. Superman can use his powers to get the documentation/proof, write it up as Clark Kent and have it printed in the Daily Planet. Thus, launching an investigation into Luthor's activities and such.
Oh, you knew what I meant by devious.
Maybe I have a different image of Supes in my head, but I honestly don't see him putting together a complex scheme to out Luthor. It doesn't strike me as Supes's M.O. Or at least it would take a while before Supes decides to consult Batman to get a plan together.
And if we want to derail this thread further...I believe you are wrong, Chris, we all know that Clark is the real person and Supes is the disguise...
A Clockwork Lim
Lieutenant Commander
What?
Superman regularly uses his brains rather than his brawn. It just tends to be his fall-back plan for when his brawn (the easier solution if given the choice) doesn't do the job. In the aforementioned All-Star Superman, for instance, he...
Superman regularly uses his brains rather than his brawn. It just tends to be his fall-back plan for when his brawn (the easier solution if given the choice) doesn't do the job. In the aforementioned All-Star Superman, for instance, he...
Convinced the Bizarros to help him build a spaceship, made Luthor run out of juice prematurely when Lex gained Superman's powers, and even had a complex and arguably convoluted plan in the last four issues to bring everything together.
I agree... Superman isn't just some musclebound thug, he's a genius too. At least he was pre-Crisis.
As to whether Clark or Superman is the "real" identity, that depends on who's writing him and what era we're discussing. I don't see it as a matter to debate about, since there's no real answer; both have been true in different iterations of the character. Though I think that either way, the public persona of Clark Kent and the public persona of Superman are both going to be different from the true personality of the man born as Kal-El. Even if he does think of himself as Clark, his identity would still be shaped by the knowledge of his powers and his alien origin, and that means he's not going to be the exact same person as the purely mortal Clark Kent he pretends to be. And even if he does think of himself as Kal-El first and foremost, the public persona of Superman is still going to require a certain degree of artifice and won't be exactly the same person he is when he lets his guard down and is just Kal-El. But then, that's true of everyone to some extent. (I don't think for a minute that he'd ever actually think of himself as "Superman." That's way too self-aggrandizing.)
Anyway, the point is the same either way: either he pretends to be someone he's not, or he pretends not to be someone he is. It's still artifice. And it's still deception when he makes an excuse to Lois about where he disappeared to, or when Superman says "Clark's fine, I caught him after he fell out the window."
As to whether Clark or Superman is the "real" identity, that depends on who's writing him and what era we're discussing. I don't see it as a matter to debate about, since there's no real answer; both have been true in different iterations of the character. Though I think that either way, the public persona of Clark Kent and the public persona of Superman are both going to be different from the true personality of the man born as Kal-El. Even if he does think of himself as Clark, his identity would still be shaped by the knowledge of his powers and his alien origin, and that means he's not going to be the exact same person as the purely mortal Clark Kent he pretends to be. And even if he does think of himself as Kal-El first and foremost, the public persona of Superman is still going to require a certain degree of artifice and won't be exactly the same person he is when he lets his guard down and is just Kal-El. But then, that's true of everyone to some extent. (I don't think for a minute that he'd ever actually think of himself as "Superman." That's way too self-aggrandizing.)
Anyway, the point is the same either way: either he pretends to be someone he's not, or he pretends not to be someone he is. It's still artifice. And it's still deception when he makes an excuse to Lois about where he disappeared to, or when Superman says "Clark's fine, I caught him after he fell out the window."
While I said that mostly to be silly, I find your comment that both are true depending on the era and not worth debating to be interesting, mostly because that same reasoning can be applied to Mad Scientist Luthor v. Businessman Luthor. In pre-crisis, Luthor was a mad scientist. In Post-Crisis, he was a businessman. Now (Post-Post Crisis?) he seems to be a mix of both.
No, he just takes the Obi-Wan stance, "What he said is true, from a certain point of view."
EDIT: I've been thinking about this while shoveling snow (gotta keep my mind active somehow). I don't think I've read a Superman story where he puts together a scheme (for lack of a better word) to catch a bad guy. I'll admit he uses his brain, but it's usually on how to best use his abilities to save the day. If someone can point me in the direction of a story where Supes does this on his own, I'll gladly appreciate it.
Last edited:
Yay, this old debate! An excuse for me to unpack some creator quotes. From the Krypton Companion, in which various past Superman writers were asked their views on Clark Kent:
"It is and has always been very clear to me that the character we are dealing with is Superman, not somebody named Clark who pretends to be Superman, and not Kal-El with some sort of alien consciousness who puts on Superman like a suit of clothes or a toga or something. The hero of the story is the character's best self, given all that character's aspects. A primary element of traditional mythology as well as contemporary mythology has always been the disguise, but the disguise is the fantasy, not the reverse-whether the hero is aware of that or not. The little kid growing up as his step-brother's squire in the duke's home was really King Arthur. The beggar who crashed the party thrown by Penelope's suitors was really Odysseus. The swan that seduced Leda was really Zeus. And the strange visitor from another planet with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men-as well as the mild-mannered reporter for a great Metropolitan newspaper-is really Superman." -- Elliot S! Maggin
"What I had to work with was essentially a Julie Schwartz-modified version of the Weisinger continuity of the '60s, in which Clark learned of his Kal-El identity when he was in grade school, rather than as a young adult. So it always seemed to me, because of the way I learned of my own identity, and had to revise my self-image as new information became available to me, that once "Clark Kent" became aware of "Kal-El", Kal-El became the "real" person, and both Clark and Superman became constructs. But, because he was, in effect, cut off from his "real" self because he had no memory of having lived as Kal-El, that real self felt less real to him-paradoxically-than either of the "manufactured" identities.
I base this conclusion on the way my own history parallels the character's: I was born in French Canada, of which I have no firsthand memory (so, for me, Canada = Krypton). In my birthplace, I was given the name Gaston Claude Rochefort (= Kal-El). I was adopted by an American couple who were a good 10-15 years older than most of my contemporaries' parents (= the Kents) and brought to the US (= Smallville) at a very early age.
My adoptive parents were completely honest with me about the fact of my adoption, and from as early as I can remember, I knew I was different from other kids in that respect. So, Gaston-Claude feels unreal to me because, to my conscious mind and memory, Martin Pasko has always been my identity. Yet I know it's a construct because I wasn't born with it.
That condition leaves one with a sense of being two people at once, and no one at all-and I was luckier than Supes; I didn't have yet a third identity to worry about!
But that sense of being a man without a real identity-as well as a man without a homeworld, if you will-leads to a kind of alienation from others that is fairly unique. I would think that Kal-El's awareness that he is considered human but isn't really of humans is in the forefront of his consciousness most of the time. It's this tragic dimension of the character that I always thought had great story potential, but nobody has ever really explored it, to my knowledge." -- Marty Pasko
I stand corrected.
That's a fascinating quote from Pasko, and I think it's probably the best interpretation I've heard. Identity is not a simple thing, even for "normal" people. How we define ourselves is something that changes over our lives and is influenced by the groups we choose to affiliate with (or get connected with even if we don't choose to be), the things we learn about ourselves over time, etc. So is he Clark, Superman, or Kal-El? He's all of them, and none of them. They're all facets of the overall person, and they're all constructs to some extent, just as everyone's identity is a construct to some extent. Who you choose to be at the office or the workplace is different from who you choose to be with your friends is different from who you choose to be with your lover or your spouse or your children, and that's different from who you can't help being with your parents or your siblings. By the same token, Clark/Kal/Superman will be someone different depending on whether he's with the Planet staff as a reporter, presenting himself to the public as a superhero, interacting with his fellow Justice Leaguers, hanging out on the farm with Ma and Pa Kent, serving as the champion of Earth in his dealings with aliens, or interacting in some way with other Kryptonians (whether through time travel, interactive memory simulations, recovery of bottled cities, or what have you).
Despite being a fan of Morrison I never could get into All Star Superman. The whole thing just never clicked with me. But, hey, it's much better than All Star Batman.
Though from seeing Diana in Allstar Batman, I would be overjoyed to see Miller's AllStar Wonder Woman as it might remind me whole heatedly of Hilda, Shewolf of the SS...
What isn't?
I'm not sure of the medical value in using a rolled up copy of All-Star Batman as an anal probe?
Although it certainly puts the comments about Vicki's ass into a suitable ironic Russian doll perspective.
Having read only one twelfth of a GN, is Super Nova still a comic book virgin? I'm reminded about the episode of How I met your mother where Allison Hannigan was talking about how she fooled around in the lobby with Scooter, but didn't go to the top of the Empire State Building with anyone but Marshall.
Although it certainly puts the comments about Vicki's ass into a suitable ironic Russian doll perspective.
Having read only one twelfth of a GN, is Super Nova still a comic book virgin? I'm reminded about the episode of How I met your mother where Allison Hannigan was talking about how she fooled around in the lobby with Scooter, but didn't go to the top of the Empire State Building with anyone but Marshall.
Similar threads
