scans_daily | Leaked covers for the Superfamily in DCNu

Salutatorian, and yup, too many recent writers who don't bother to do shit research don't realize that Clark Kent has been an athletic, popular, smart, and strong-willed farmer-turned-prize-winning-reporter for 25 years. Which, y'know, makes a bazillion times more sense than the pathetically juvenile, fridge-logic-riddled, and shallow wish-fulfillment fantasy of the Silver Age, where heroes came off as smarmy sociopaths and everyone acted like they were six years old. Remind me again why writers are so nostalgic for that cringeworthy, godawful era?

Correct on all counts. Even if Clark Kent is a bit of a nebbish, it only came about once he was in Metropolis and needed to differentiate himself from his alter ego.

Also, I think the fact that he was always a bit different in Metropolis than in Smallville was sort of out of his control, like a runaway reputation. Especially in the late '80s comics, he often came off like that because he was always lying about why he was late, why he was in such and such a bizarre situation, why so many weird things happened to him, why he was always getting random mysterious tips from people no one knew, etc, etc, so everyone at the Daily Planet assumed he was this eccentric weirdo who Perry just kept around because he wrote really well, and Clark pretty much went "Yeah, that's a great idea! Um, I mean, yeah, that's what happened!" But then he would worry about how if he was always being so mysterious and weird, Lois might think he was a nutjob and would be even less likely to date him, or Jimmy might decide not to hang out with him anymore, or Perry might fire him, which is the opposite of his situation pre-Crisis, when he would worry that if Clark acted too confident, Lois/Perry/Jimmy might figure him out.

That's actually something I liked about him — instead of just pretending to be mild-mannered, he actually was. Not cowardly or anything, but the fact that he was like that naturally had a lot of complexity and depth and pleasing ideas about it — that a totally ordinary, even introverted person can be a great hero if he only has the means/power to do so.

"Clark Kent has been an athletic, popular, smart, and strong-willed farmer-turned-prize-winning-reporter..."

Which isn't wish fulfillment at all.

"everyone acted like they were six years old."

People have theorized that that's exactly why the series was such a hit with kids. Because all the characters, and the world itself, conformed to kid-logic.

But anyway, I don't think you have to conflate Clark Kent the timid nerd with those other trappings of the Silver Age. No more than, say, bringing back Kara Zor-El or Lois' black hair (both originally removed by the Crisis) means you have to bring back those trappings.

So, to answer your question, why are writers nostalgic for the Silver Age? In general they aren't nostalgic for the whole of it, just certain elements. Specifically, what they want to bring back are certain colorful, zany, and *fun* (remember when it was okay for superhero comics to be that?) elements that Byrne and co. erased out of an arguably misplaced attempt at realism. That's a different thing from bringing back the Silver Age wholesale, or bringing back its tone or style.

Look at ALL-STAR SUPERMAN; despite being the closest thing to a return to the Silver Age perhaps ever, it still reads fundamentally different from actual Silver Age stories. Even if a resurrected Curt Swan had drawn the issues, nobody would have mistaken their stories for actual SA comics in a million years.

On the specific matter of the timid, awkward Clark, various people over the years have written or talked about how the duality between that and Superman works as a wonderful metaphor for adolescence. You don't have to agree with that personally, but considering it was under that set-up that the character cemented itself in household name-dom and Americana, I don't think there's denying that there's obviously *something* to it. Yes, it is less realistic and makes less sense, but realism should never be the ultimate goal of Superman comics.

I wasn't really trying to imply that timid awkward Clark was all there was to the Silver Age, just that it was those kind of simple, shallow, kid-friendly ideas were a big staple of the Silver Age, and people think that bringing them back will make things better. That's not true. You NEVER go backwards when you're working in an evolving genre. It won't work. It's near-impossible to do unless you're doing a parody, like Alan Moore's 1963. You want fun and lightheartedness? So do I. I definitely don't want heroes acting like assholes, or everyone being miserable and living through death and horror every day, or reading overdone deconstruction after deconstruction. I want heroes being happy, having fun, and acting heroic, but I don't want Silver Age fun and lightheartedness. I want modern fun and lightheartedness. Silver Age stuff was great for its time, and yes, it contained some immortal ideas that really resonated with the general population, but we're way past it now, and trying to bring it back is a terrible idea. Not everything new has to automatically be grimmer and grittier.

And in the same way: timid awkward Clark? Yes, it IS a cool idea, something that really resonates, and it still works in limited series like All-Star Superman, but as an ongoing, continuously-running, single-continuity character? Doesn't work anymore. Not as a new idea. It's been done, it's been drained. The genre's evolved past those ideas, as powerful as they may be. Doesn't mean you can't still tell limited stories about them, but ideas, and idea-driven characters like superheroes evolve, and evolution doesn't mean a constant trend towards doom and gloom and darkness and edginess. The whole point of deconstructions and eras like the Dark Age are so that you can reconstruct genres without the flaws and holdovers that the deconstructions point out and rip apart. You don't just ignore them and keep going like you're still stuck in the '60s.

I may have been a tad too vicious about the Silver Age earlier — don't get me wrong, I enjoy Silver Age stories a lot, but I enjoy them in a way where I'm aware of how dated they are and how new the genre was back then, and how far I am from those times. I don't want current stories to be told like that anymore, not because they're bad, but because this is not the time anymore.

I get what you're saying and agree in principle, if not in the details. Characters should evolve, and a slavish devotion to the past serves no one. Believe me, I'm not trying to argue that comics were better in the Silver Age.

My primary point (which perhaps got lost in my rambling) was that I don't think today's writers want to bring back the Silver Age, either. They want to bring back certain elements of it, but not the overall tone or style. Would anyone ever confuse a Geoff Johns story for Silver Age writing? I'm saying that just because they want timid Clark back, that doesn't mean they also want "smarmy sociopaths" and everyone acting like a six-year-old. They're selective about what they want to bring in.

Yeah, I understand that, but IMO bringing back those kind of elements from the Silver Age DOES come hand in hand with a bunch of outdated Silver Age tropes. For example: if you decide you want timid Clark back, you have to ask yourself what kind of a superhero would go around pretending to be a coward and hoping everyone has a low opinion of him when he doesn't really need to. The answer is, well, Silver Age Superman, who has memories of Krypton and doesn't really need to be liked or have a life as Clark Kent, who is a fabrication. I'm not saying that sort of thing can't work as a cool idea in a limited story (again, I cite the awesomeness that is All-Star Superman) but it won't work as an ongoing continuity. The same happens when you try to bring back almost any other Silver Age elements — and in fact, they work a lot worse when they're written in a non-Silver Age-esque style.

Thank you for encapsulating what I wanted to express better than I would have done!

Thanks! Though it does go to show I'm a nerd who's spent way too much time thinking about this :P

"For example: if you decide you want timid Clark back, you have to ask yourself what kind of a superhero would go around pretending to be a coward and hoping everyone has a low opinion of him when he doesn't really need to. The answer is, well, Silver Age Superman, who has memories of Krypton and doesn't really need to be liked or have a life as Clark Kent, who is a fabrication."

Alternately, someone willing to make that great a sacrifice to protect his parents.

"The same happens when you try to bring back almost any other Silver Age elements — and in fact, they work a lot worse when they're written in a non-Silver Age-esque style."

Keep in mind that if every writer had taken that attitude, we wouldn't have Brainiac the alien robot menace today, as that was a revived pre-Crisis element after Byrne/Wolfman had turned him into a carnival worker with psychic powers. Likewise for Lex Luthor's scientific genius. Byrne's version was scientifically smart but not comic book-level smart. He even had a scientist lackey who invented tech for him, didn't he? Dr. Killgrave or something. Roger Stern's decision to make Luthor himself the kind of guy who could invent crazy, sci-fi machinery was bringing back a Silver Age element.

Going more general, Batman villain Scarecrow went absent from comics for over twenty years. If some writer hadn't decided there was potential in dusting off this character from a bygone era back, we'd be missing out.

Basically, I strongly disagree that Silver Age elements can't be brought back in a way that works. I mean, looking at your icon, is something like crystal waterfalls on Krypton really that out of place in a world where there's room for the living embodiment of Martian oreo addiction?

Well, IMO there's a difference between stuff that was around during the Silver Age, and stuff that is imbued with distinctly Silver Age ideas. By your logic, bringing back Jimmy Olsen or Dick Grayson or Kryptonite or anyone or anything else that existed in the Silver Age would also constitute "bringing back the Silver Age", which isn't really what I meant. But hey — I can tell we're not going to agree on anything, so let's just agree to disagree. I always like to say comics are nothing if not very broad in their scope of ideas.

"Well, IMO there's a difference between stuff that was around during the Silver Age, and stuff that is imbued with distinctly Silver Age ideas."

I think the line between the two is much thinner than you do. I'm sure there were people who thought the robotic Brainiac was distinctly Silver Age ("A robot who goes around shrinking cities and their populations and collecting them? And his spaceship looks like a giant replica of his head? I'm glad we're past that sort of silliness.") and were glad Byrne/Wolfman retconned it out... up until other writers should that it could be adapted and altered to fit modern sensibilities.

I agree that there are aspects of the Silver Age that genuinely can't be adapted today, but I suspect where you and I differ is on what belongs in that category. So on that note...

"I can tell we're not going to agree on anything, so let's just agree to disagree."

Sure.

"I always like to say comics are nothing if not very broad in their scope of ideas."

On that, there's no disagreement. :)

Leaked covers for the Superfamily in DCNu

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject