SuperOz

....and never show her this thread.



S.

I'd go with option number two myself.

Primarily because there's a question I'd want to know the answer to...which is what the being was that was powerful, godlike, or otherwise omniscient enough to give me these choices to begin with. A being that can make you immortal and invulnerable, plus to be able to fly faster than the speed of light and can make you omniscient at the end of time?

Chances are that being has already been there and done this...and I have an insatiable curiosity for such things. And who knows, I might learn some universal truth about myself, or humanity or something equally profound with all this knowledge. Which means in turn I'd understand something about creation itself before it ended or whatever happens when the universe ends. I figure also this being would know the final outcome of both choices (myself and one other end up at the end of the universe in this scenario), so there's no 'get out of jail free' card here.

Sure, there's an enormous temptation to go to billions of other worlds and have millions of lifetimes of experience, but I agree with others here in that I don't think we're built to live that way without some radical changes in both our mind and outloook.

What would I ask an immortal being who's had a chance to experience all of time and space? Hm.

'Would you like to stay and see what happens next and talk about what we've learned?'


S.

Rosa,

I wouldn't find there to be too much irony in that, to be honest. I met him and listened to him on a panel earlier this year and he's really become a 'I write what they tell me to' sort of writer. So he's solid enough and all, but he freely admits that he writes for the paycheque rather than for creative expression these days.

I spent some time trying to follow his writing on Nightwing and found that I couldn't stay with him on it. I don't remember all the details of a discussion I had with him over the comic (I seem to recall that I was confused about a particular direction Nightwing had gone in the comic) and he responded by saying that 'this was what the editor told me to do, so I did it'. That was something of a surprise, because I'd previously had an impression of him that suggested he was very passionate about his work, and I thought he would've had at least some opinion on the subject rather than just an acquiesence.

That wasn't lost on me meeting him and George Perez both, and hearing Perez say he's really just out to draw everyone ever in the DC and Marvel universes before he can't draw anymore, but at least George still has immense passion for his work...and you can't entirely blame an artist for what a writer sets in front of them.

Oh, I agree. There are parts I do find entertaining in both Infinite Crisis and Legion, but overall I just didn't buy into what was being presented to me. It could've been a story with completely different characters but it wouldnt've changed my reaction to the story, which is where I've come from with this.


S.

PS I should say I forgot to mention I have read the Busiek story you mentioned and I thought it's probably one of the better 'real world Superman' stories out there too.

Lastjustice,

I think I've spent several posts here reiterating that my issue has and has always been the quality and consistency of the writing. I have no real attachment to Alex Luthor, Prime, Kal-L or Lois Lane. I was a teenager when I read Crisis and whilst it meant that some things that I enjoyed were going away forever (for example, I accept Nightwing's origin was fundamentally changed for good reasons, but I did think it hurt the concept and the character later on), I accepted the reasoning of the DC staff at the time that fifty years of continuity was too much baggage for anyone to manage.

My childhood wasn't murdered; in all reality, I read only one comic book (and have) since about 2008, and it's not even DC. Comic books aren't really part of my life anymore and while I'll make a point of going back and reading things like I did with Legion and Infinite Crisis, I'm actually borrowing them from the library rather than pay for them. I think the 'event' miniseries has been done to death by Marvel and DC and the quality suffers.

I don't remotely question that characters are open to be used by any author who is allowed to or is able to use them and reinterpret them if that's their desire. But what I have argued and will continue to argue, are fundamentals of writing. And that is consistency, continuity and coherency. I learned and trained in filmmaking in university, and scriptwriting is probably one of the hardest things I found personally to and it's not totally dissimilar to scripting for comics in terms of the breakdowns and pacing you work with.

I in fact love Nolan's Batman films and am a huge supporter of them, because he did indeed take this iconic character and reinterpreted him, showing us how he would function in the real world. I love anything that is intelligent, well-written, and makes internal consistent sense.

Again, and I can't believe I have to say this: I have problems, which I believe I have detailed and in-depth, with the characterisations and story logic of both Infinite Crisis and Legion of Three Worlds.

That's it. Period. My childhood isn't ruined. I'm not ******** and moaning over this otherwise I WOULD SAY SO and I frankly resent the assumptions that I am. Durakken ignored whole chunks of points when I started raising them (and I was and remain open to straight up debate and discussion) and now you've made presumptions on my viewpoint even though I've clearly stated them.

I dig quality, I dig something awesome. I didn't and don't find Infinite Crisis and Legion of Three Worlds awesome, I didn't find it universally of good quality and I thought it was gimmicky.


S.

I'll respond to these points happily:

First of all Foamy...I'm not arguing for a consistency in character across decades. Even I as an older fan acknowledge that characters evolve in response to the times in which they live, with moral and societal changes influencing them. What I am arguing is the consistent portrayal of those characters as shown to us in Crisis on Infinite Earths. I can agree with you to a point on Superboy-Prime's case, but that's really just unfortunate timing in terms of when he was created. However, consider the character's major influences in terms of whom he met...and he met some of the most influental characters DC ever produced, including Kal-L. But this more properly belongs with the response to Durakken.

I disagree strongly that Johns captures the heroic ideals of the Silver or Gold Ages, actually. If Superboy-Prime is the outraged feelings of fans from those eras, then why does he act completely contrary to the ideals of those times? That's a pretty heavy-handed commentary, in my view. I don't think presenting an extreme reaction as symbolised in the character is a commentary. It's reactionary, certainly. But it's a lot of noise that really is just polarising. Upon reading it even casually, there's a dismissive attitude to both eras. Firstly in the inability of the Gold/Silver Ages to adjust to the Modern, and the inability of the Modern to evolve and grow. Add to that you make the character almost unable to function as anything other than as a symbolic one, and your premise ends once you're unable to take or make the point any further.


Durakken, I respectfully agree with you, again to a point. Story-wise, I'm still left with a number of questions:

How are those in the Paradise Dimension even able to see the Modern Age? Most people acknowledge that Byrne's Hypertime (which effectively opened the door) is a poor premise and allows for massive hand-waving without having to explain anything.

Why is the Paradise Dimension killing Lois Lane of Earth-2, when the original text from the original Crisis has Lois stating it's a tranquil, peaceful world and Alex saying that while he can't return the four to their own worlds, he can take them to this 'beautiful world'? There's no suggestion that it is anything other than the 'heaven' that Marv Wolfman intentionally wrote for them. It's a question I've never found an answer to.

Secondly, if the Paradise Dimension is largely empty except for those four, why can't Kal-L become a defacto father figure for Prime? You can't pin everything on that Kal-L has been worried about Lois all that time...even I don't buy that. He hasn't seen or suspects what Lex is doing to Prime's thoughts and feelings? We're talking about the singularly most experienced superhero that exists in DC continuity and has been shown to continually put aside his personal concerns for those of others, regardless of circumstances.

Thirdly, Prime did have role models in both Supermen, all the heroes he met during the original Crisis and was present at the death of the Silver Age Supergirl. He understands sacrifice, heroism, selflessness and the traditions of heroes from other worlds. And he continued to when he was with Kal-L. He was directly responsible for helping to save the Multiverse and willingly accepted that his Earth was destroyed.

You combine these things with the poor portrayal of Luthor (which utterly flies in the face of the notion of Earth-3's role reversal in heroes and villains, and is only explained by a hand-waving regarding the Source), and you have a Prime who's being an angsty Peter Pan character, instead of the young fledgling superhero who was acknowledged by his peers (and I am happy to quote directly from the original Crisis) as worthy of the S-shield. It's also using a metatextual device (being able to 'see' the whole of the current DC continuity) in a way that character would never be able to do in their regular existence.

Edit: It's with sadness I have to add in this thread that my original issues of Crisis have gone missing, as I was hoping to use direct quotes to illustrate my points. I have my fingers crossed they are safe at a friend's house.



S.

Thank you for the responses....

My problem as I stated isn't whether this is some sort of authored response to the Silver Age, it's the consistency of the writing and the use of 'shock tactic' incidents in place of actual drama. Since when did an author feel unable to write a response without drastically changing the character and make them their mouthpiece for an argument that honestly has no place in the setting of the stories? That's like asking Micheal Moorcock to write an academic piece on his own writing. You'd never get anything but a metatextual response.

I am definitely a fanboy of the Gold and Silver Ages, and it's largely because regardless of whatever criticism you lay at their feet, they provided you with a consistent and continuous portrayal of those characters without having to resort to the extreme writing shown in these stories. To say that using Superboy-Prime as he was wound up being a necessary act in order to restore some semblance of heroism to the DC Universe has much more of an implicit statement about the general quality of DC's writing that they couldn't actually dig themselves out of their own holes. I mean really, it had to take Geoff Johns taking a character that as you say was probably inconsequential to him and both imposing and magnifying what he percieved was a fan view to 'fix' DC? If anything, that seems to imply a lack of faith in the creators of the monthly books to do so themselves. And I certainly don't think a writer of any appreciable talent couldn't do it with a bit of effort.

And that's the crux of it. I'm not offended by Superboy-Prime just because he's written patently out of character, I'm also offended by the author's assumption that his viewpoint speaks for a base of fandom. He's welcome to comment on these things, but not to draw conclusions. That is our perogative as readers, to take what we will from these works, not to have them imposed upon us. To say one is offended by growth and development of a character would be a foolish argument.

Natural (and I must stress that word here) development and growth is welcomed in any character, so long as it stems from consistency within them. What is not welcomed is a situation whereby character changes are imposed upon a character for the sake of storytelling. As was mentioned, Alex Luthor and Superboy-Prime are made scapegoat villains, even though their prior portrayal suggests none of that. In fact, the initial premise of the 'paradise dimension' being an empty chalice forces their response rather than having it occur naturally. In other words, the writing is forced and unnatural to get to a point that could've been reached through ends more believable and credible than presented.

And as you say, the other authors have tended to ignore this in any event, so that again says a great deal to me about the state of DC's writing stable and that if Geoff Johns is the guy championing Silver Age values (I think Alex Ross and Mark Waid have demonstrably proven they do a better job at it in my own personal opinion), then that in turn is an indicator of the kind of 'event writing' to restore a status quo.

quick edit: Regarding the redemption of Superboy-Prime as a character, I think he's probably at the 'radioactive' stage that Hawkman reached a while back where his origin and continuity was so messed up noone wanted to touch him. Someone did point out on the DC forums the Parallax story, but Superboy-Prime is deliberately polarising, and his actions contribute largely to that. He's not just killing individual characters, but he also kills billions in the Sinestro Corps War. Now even if that is under another author, it doesn't help his cause. It's somewhat akin to asking if a real-life historical figure like Hitler could be redeemed, and it ultimately falls under the weight of the actions committed, because he chose to do them, and wasn't coerced or influenced by an outside source. Now Superboy-Prime was influenced by Alex Luthor initially, but he consciously chose his actions after that and that's very hard to overcome in terms of writing.


S.

Hi all.

As the title says, I've finally caught up with the internet hyperbole that surrounded (and possibly still does) regarding the treatment and portrayal of the Superboy-Prime character in DC's recent Final Crisis and most notably Legion of Three Worlds sagas. I even took the time to buzz the DC Comics forums and find the infamous posts by 'superboyprime' and 'clark_kentprime'.

So here's my reflections on things, coming from the standpoint that I'm old enough to have read the original Crisis on Infinite Earths when it first came out (and still have nearly the entire run in its original format).

I honestly, really can't reconcile myself to this portrayal of not only Clark Kent of Earth-Prime, but that of Alexander Luthor, and the Superman of Earth-2. One of the biggest arguments made for their portrayal is that they're more realistic and in keeping with the times, and while I want to get back to that depiction and definition of 'realism', I'll focus on the story for the time being.

Originally presented, sending those four characters off to a 'paradise dimension' was an acknowledgement by Marv Wolfman (and I presume the DC higher ups at the time) to never kill off these characters as they were to become cherished memories and literally 'alive in our hearts' as readers. I was perfectly fine with that and it said to me that this was a dignified and respectful way to say goodbye to the Silver Age and close that long-running chapter in DC Comics' history.

Now, I came and went with DC over the years, frowning at Zero Hour, Hypertime and the other 'events' they did in the 90's whilst being pleasantly surprised by things like Kingdom Come.

Then came Identity Crisis, Countdown to Infinite Crisis, Infinite Crisis itself and so on. And I ran into significant issues. The first one amongst them being why, if the definition of what the four characters aforementioned went into was a 'paradise dimension', was it devoid and lifeless and killing Lois Lane? Why, given that Kal-L was the benchmark for the devoted and selfless Superman for all that bore that name after, apparently incapable of becoming a parental figure to young teenage Clark Kent from Earth-Prime? And lastly, why was Alexander Luthor given the extremely dubious premise of having been influenced by the Source to try and 'rectify' things?

All of these things struck me as terribly inconsistent in terms of characterisation and seemingly just served to punctuate 'shock' storytelling, especially with the rampant violence Superboy-Prime particularly displayed. And I'm sorry...a punch that can disrupt reality itself? Every dectrator of the Silver Age bemoans the staggering power levels Superman displayed then, yet this 'Modern Age' story goes far and beyond apparently accepted levels of believability.

Having gone on as I said to read Legion of Three Worlds, I was struck by the notion of the writer's desire to somehow polarise debate on Superboy-Prime and how he was apparently breaking the fourth wall to make commentary/critique of fans who couldn't stand the modern comics style and mentality. Am I alone in finding that somewhat insulting as a reader? I'm not saying a writer can't make insights and comments (Watchmen is still cited for that, for example), but when the character of Superboy-Prime is essentially reduced to a writer's expression of a power fantasy and then compounds it by directly addressing the audience, I find it creates an alienating distance that defeats the very purpose it sets out to achieve. I also admit that the 'rants' (tame as they were) on the DC forums only seemed to serve the purpose of trying to continue the debate.

And the debate itself largely seemed to settle on whether you accepted that the characters as presented were the same ones from the original Crisis. Some people even argued you couldn't say that because it was in print, and you couldn't choose to ignore the material. I fall into the former camp not out of some nostalgic love for the characters, but because I find their modern interpretations to have character and plot holes I could fly the shattered remains of Krypton through.

And I think this is the point where I can mention this notion of 'realism'. I've had an on-again/off-again debate with some friends over this notion and the very notion of 'adult reading'. I had a friend point-blank tell me that because he's a different person than he was twenty years ago when he first read Narnia, for example, Narnia is now juvenile and 'lacking depth'. To him, the Thomas Covenant Chronicles is proper grown up reading. What little I've been told about the characters and the setting, it strikes me that 'adult characterisation' is comprised of damaging character flaws and people put in extremis.

The same also seems to be true of current comics writing. It's not enough that these people are gifted/cursed with extraordinary abilities and figure out (or not) how to manage their lives, but they must now be placed in situations that seem to stretch the very point of credibility and believability, even for superherodom. Superboy-Prime is warped into nearly a parody of himself, allowed to be extreme and 'off the leash', committing horrendous acts of graphic violence (at least for comics), passing commentary/judgement on some characters and finally allowed to take direct shots at the audience, all the while breaking what I see as the cardinal rule of characterisation: consistency.

I'm very aware that some people reading this will find Superboy-Prime to be very well written and Geoff Johns to be a talented writer. Without meaning to shorten the lifespan of any debate (and I welcome discussion as much as anyone), I do not find either of the above statements to be true, and I hope I've outlined the reasons why above.

One of the posters on the DC forums mentioned that there is almost a profound hopelessness in popular fiction, and that Superboy-Prime is almost an anti-hero because of how circumstance has conspired against him. I find that to be the case also. I'm genuinely not trying to be apologise for the Silver Age, but is there anything actually wrong with our heroes by and large making the right decisions, confronting their inner demons and being better people for it? Has 'shocking violence' become shorthand for our desensitisation to what we see on tv now, and what we see in comic events like this is just that writ large?

I honestly think if I saw too much of this sort of thing (and I honestly had to turn myself away from Marvel's 'Superhero Registration Act' and 'The Death of Captain America'), I would be a horribly cynical, not very hopeful and somewhat grim individual.

I know this isn't true for everyone and some people (especially those who have grown up in this generation) have no problems with this, and perhaps they are more hardy and understanding of these things than I. But this is how I feel and I hope those people can be understanding of my viewpoint also.

Well, I think that largely covers it and I've tried to be comprehensive. I welcome any and all comments.



S.

It is as it always is. Noone ever dies in comics. And an issue wrapped in plastic? That's so Death of Superman from what...1994? If that's the best that Marvel can pull out these days, then I'm glad I'm not really reading their books that much anymore.


S.

Bravo! Bravo! Very very well done!


S.