Superman General

Today's the anniversary of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. I thought it would be relevant. Also, I'm posting this for good measure:

I think both sides here deserve a good whacking over the head with the ol' 'Changing the Subject to a Poster' Mod Stick.

I think M'sieu deCheese is exactly right. Neither of you guys is exactly holding the high ground.

So knock it off before I stick the both of you in opposite time-out corners with your noses pressed up against the wall.

In conclusion, I reiterate that Superman deconstructions are boring and played out.

Well, that's awkward for my purposes...

I think most of those have been stamped out too.

Awesome.

So, again, the New Deal was awesome, and New Fifty Two Superman comes across as pretty cool so far. I especially liked when he tried to get the Justice League into doing something about... the starvation situation in Somalia, I think? And they were all extremely reluctant and wary of the idea; apparently all of them agree that Small Steps Hero is best hero.

@Melon: Gasp, how dare you? Deconstruction is the first step to Reconstruction and to keeping things fresh and interesting. It's fun, it's interesting, it's dramatic, it's thoughtful, it takes things to their logical conclusion and finds new angles and perspectives. Sure, it's all a matter of cyclic periods, but deconstructive processes are always relevant, like the colour black. I think people dislike Superman deconstructions specifically because they seriously hinder Superman's function as a pure icon of everything that is good and just and exemplary, but I think that's precisely why they are interesting. There's no point to holding a character to such a high standard that it falls apart as soon as you start thinking about it for too long. Some more flawed, limited versions of Superman don't have this problem.

Conversely, people tend to like deconstructions of Batman because they enable him to function better as Batman; brooding, dark, tortured, violent, thoughtful, quiet, vengeance, the night, etc. etc.

And then there's folks like Spider Man, who are living, walking deconstructions of themselves, and keep doing it all by themselves. I love you, Spider Man, your ability to constantly question yourself and blame yourself for everything is equal parts endearing and exasperating.

edited 26th Jun '14 6:59:40 PM by TheHandle

I have nothing against deconstructions themselves, I just don't care for Superman ones.

edited 26th Jun '14 7:14:08 PM by VeryMelon

My first concern is with stopping the brawl.

My second concern is cleaning up the mess it left.

That's been done, now, and both The Handle and Hyperalbion are going to be taking some time off from posting. Neither one of you was behaving in a way that could be called civil by even the most generous standards. Five thumps each for posts made in the space of one day? That's not acceptable.

And by the way, The Handle, Hollering someone else's bad behavior is not a Get Out Of Jail Free card for your own.

edited 26th Jun '14 7:09:00 PM by Madrugada

Just to be clear, 1938 Superman did NOT grow up in an orphanage near Metropolis (unless it's a Superman in an Elseworlds or somebody's fanfic). Both the Superman comic strip and comics at the time clearly show him being found by the Kents, turned in to the "Orphan Asylum" and later adopted by the Kents (who at this point were named John and Mary). The Superman radio show, in an interesting twist, actually had him emerge from his rocket fully grown and already in costume upon his arrival on Earth. In the radio version, he's found by a man and his son who help the then-unnamed alien come up with the name "Superman" (because of the "S" on his chest; seriously)as well as his "Clark Kent" identity.

Oh, and for those who are interested, the novel It's Superman is by Tom De Haven. And yes, Lois is pretty unpleasant in it. The way De Haven describes it, she realizes she's being awful to Clark while he's being nothing but nice to her, but she just can't seem to stop herself. She comes off as, while bright, ambitious, and intelligent, exceptionally immature, which is probably the point. I don't think either Lois or Clark is meant to be over 20 in this book. But then, in my opinion anyhow, Lois USUALLY comes off pretty badly. It's funny, for instance, going back and reading George Lowther's Superman novel, the very FIRST Superman novel, back in the '40's, and encountering a Lois who, literally, faints in tense situations and has an hysterical fit after Superman rescues her from drowning; and THIS is the weak sister who dismisses Clark as a coward. Really, the only Lois I really liked was Geoff Johns' version.

edited 26th Jun '14 8:28:47 PM by Robbery

Since Superman was an adult upon arrival to earth in the radio show, did they ever do any fish out of water stories? Or was it just so they could jump straight to the superhero adventure? How'd he know English in the radio series?

1.No fish out of water stories that I'm aware of. 2. Probably so. and 3. Good question; to my knowledge, never explained. He was in that ship a long time, so perhaps he had stuff with which to educate himself about Earth.

Well, that was fun.

Anyways, I read Superman #32 and I liked it. It might take a few more issues for everything to pay off, sort of like Johns' first volume of Aquaman but I am now gonna pick up Superman every month.

There's also Superman Unchained #7 coming soon, which I will pick up when I return from vacation.

I think Superman Unchained is a terrible oxymoron. It might be a good title for a post-slavery or post-bondage story arc, but as a generic title? It doesn't suit him at all. There's no one in the DCU that's more restrained than Superman.

I haven't been reading the book, but I wonder if the title doesn't actually refer to the Superman-like character Wraith that's the primary antagonist in the book. He's what Superman could be without his morality that restrains him. As I said, I haven't read the story so I could be dead wrong, but it seems like one possibility.

Are you ready for Batman: The Odyssey, but starring Superman instead?

Huh??? Is this to confuse the characters and readers?

Has Clark ever accidentally hurt anyone in the comics? Not counting the times he's been mind controlled.

Yes, usually as a backstory thing. "I'm extra careful with my powers because this one time..." It is, of course, never a permanent injury.

eta: Oh, that one time he made Luthor bald, but that was partially Lex's own fault.

edited 8th Jul '14 5:04:34 AM by SKJAM

Does this count?◊

Didn't Supes also accidentally kill Lex's construct-pet? I figured that ought to have hit him where it hurt more than losing his hair did.

The construct-pet was a retcon of Elliot S! Maggin to give Lex a stronger reason to hate Superboy, IIRC.

During the Emperor Joker crisis, Joker briefly made Clark lose control of his powers so everyone he even touched was crushed, but I don't know if that counts for what you're thinking of.

edited 8th Jul '14 10:17:11 AM by NapoleonDeCheese