The Superman Family Message Board >> View Thread

Author
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074


Just for the novelty, these lads actually predicted Bendis would be on the book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZD6l_Kik7E




R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 7
JesusFan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 18,188


Made sense, as he would probably only have come over to do the biggest Hero in all of Comicdom from Marvel, and he sems to wants to get Kal back to His jewish roots now...


Posted with Opera 9.80 on Linux
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074



    Quote:
    . . .he sems to wants to get Kal back to His jewish roots now...


I'm up for seeing that, as I don't know what Superman's Jewish roots are. I know his creators are Jewish, but I have yet to put my finger on how their background translated to Superman. The Moses analogy and the Christ figure trope, notwithstanding.






R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,786




    Quote:
    I'm up for seeing that, as I don't know what Superman's Jewish roots are. I know his creators are Jewish, but I have yet to put my finger on how their background translated to Superman. The Moses analogy and the Christ figure trope, notwithstanding.


I'm not.

Superman never had any 'Jewish roots'. Neither Siegel nor Shuster were observant Jews. Religion meant little to them. Superman's roots are in pre-1938 science fiction books and pulps, and the murder of Siegel's father.

All of the religious baggage - of any denomination - that's been foist on Superman has come from later creators or scholars trying to hijack the character for their own purposes, and who have little or no idea what was in Siegel's head when he crated him.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Gernot 

Manager

Location: St. Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,418


Weren't the Kents shown to be Christian in Superman For All Seasons?



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 58.0 on Windows 7
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074


Yessir. I've just heard over the years about Superman's Jewish roots, such as they may be, though I've never seen them displayed. The Christ figure trope has been done, and to death (no joke intended), but I don't think Siegel or Shuster every implied anything Jewish with Superman that was religious or cultural, let alone stated directly.




R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 7
JesusFan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 18,188


I think that Bendis meant his creators Jewish roots...

And also think that Superman has pretty much been labeled and seen as the Christ figure of the DCY for some time now, and would probably be a Methodist, based upon his adoptive parents state anfd background!


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 47.0 on Linux
Knight


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 9,727



nt





It's interesting that a hero/villain performs one amazing feat, or use a power they haven't used for 20+ years, and that automatically propels them to a high status despite scans and evidence to the contrary. I don't know what is worse, selective feat picking that has only been done once or twice 20, or more, years ago or ignoring evidence from scans or the lack thereof. We need to stop putting our favorite heroes/villains on pedestals and start putting them where they really belong. But it's evident that people never will because they would rather accuse others of cherry picking feats, when they don't, and being 'morally superior' when they aren't. I guess being honest and as fair as possible only opens one up to being the target of childish accusations and fault finding by those who insist on acting petty and childish. What happened to a good debate between two civil, mature, adults?
Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 7
JesusFan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 18,188


I think that Bendis might be bringing back to Supes his fighting against eveil and for the individual, as when first showing up, Superman was shown beating down wife abusers and other unsavory people!


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 47.0 on Linux
JesusFan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 18,188


To them, his creators, he was as the Moses immigrant into a starnge new World, and though you do not like it, Superman is the Jesus of the DCU.Period...


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 47.0 on Linux
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,786



    Quote:
    Weren't the Kents shown to be Christian in Superman For All Seasons?


Indeed they were. And that makes perfect sense. If you grew up in smalltown America in the years the Kents grew up, you'd almost certainly have had at least a nominally Christian upbringing.

However, Siegel and Shuster had absolutely no interest in the Kents. They're both dead by the events of Action Comics #1, and are nothing more than a throwaway plot device to give Superman a bit of backstory, just as Krypton was.

Superman's roots were unimportant to Siegel and Shuster. All they were interested in doing was telling contemporary adventure stories featuring Superman.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,786



    Quote:
    To them, his creators, he was as the Moses immigrant into a starnge new World, and though you do not like it, Superman is the Jesus of the DCU.Period...


It's all very well saying it (Your Moses reference), but you need to show me proof of your assertions.

As for the Christian symbology currently attached to the character, you're right that I don't care for it, because - apart from the fact it's silly - it's completely wrong for the character.

Superman should be inspiring to everyone, and represent everyone. The second you make him Christian, or Jewish, or Democrat or Republican, then he DOESN'T represent everyone. He becomes partisan.

And that's just plain wrong.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074





    Quote:
    However, Siegel and Shuster had absolutely no interest in the Kents. They're both dead by the events of Action Comics #1, and are nothing more than a throwaway plot device to give Superman a bit of backstory, just as Krypton was.


This just isn't true, and even if it does, it wouldn't negate Clark's upbringing, or the influences thereof.





R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 7
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074


Morrison did that just a few years ago. Can anyone be inspired by Action Comics 1 without need to replicate it exactly? I hope so.




R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,786




    Quote:
    This just isn't true, and even if it does, it wouldn't negate Clark's upbringing, or the influences thereof.


Then, as I say to Jesusfan, you need to show your evidence. Cite a few pre-1945 Superman stories written by Jerry Siegel where either the Kents or Krypton feature.

I agree it negates nothing that would come later, but the conversation is about Superman getting back to his 'Jewish roots', and my assertion is that he never had any, not in any story written by Siegel.



Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074




    Quote:
    Then, as I say to Jesusfan, you need to show your evidence. Cite a few pre-1945 Superman stories written by Jerry Siegel where either the Kents or Krypton feature.


One of the reasons I don't do diligence for others any longer i.e. "show evidence" is because of statements like you've just made. Look at your phrasing: "either the Kents or Krypton feature". You don't want evidence, you want an example that meets the standard which you've set in your mind. You also state the following, with no evidence:

"However, Siegel and Shuster had absolutely no interest in the Kents. They're both dead by the events of Action Comics #1, and are nothing more than a throwaway plot device to give Superman a bit of backstory, just as Krypton was."

Were either of them quoted as saying this? Can you provide evidence? It's obvious that the Kents were not a "throwaway plot device", though that may be how you see them and feel about them.


    Quote:
    I agree it negates nothing that would come later, but the conversation is about Superman getting back to his 'Jewish roots', and my assertion is that he never had any, not in any story written by Siegel.


It was. You brought the Kents.




R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,786




    Quote:
    One of the reasons I don't do diligence for others any longer i.e. "show evidence" is because of statements like you've just made. Look at your phrasing: "either the Kents or Krypton feature". You don't want evidence, you want an example that meets the standard which you've set in your mind. You also state the following, with no evidence:



    Quote:
    "However, Siegel and Shuster had absolutely no interest in the Kents. They're both dead by the events of Action Comics #1, and are nothing more than a throwaway plot device to give Superman a bit of backstory, just as Krypton was."



    Quote:
    Were either of them quoted as saying this? Can you provide evidence? It's obvious that the Kents were not a "throwaway plot device", though that may be how you see them and feel about them.


Yes, I can. The evidence is the body of work.

Action Comics #1 (See attachment 1). Superman's history is briefly given, but there's no appearance by the Kents. A 'passing motorist' finds a baby and takes him to an orphanage.

The first time we see the Kents is when Siegel has to expand on Superman's origin for the first issue of his own title. But for a FULL YEAR as far as anyone's concerned Clark Kent is brought up in an orphanage. Even in Superman #1 the Kents' appearance is a brief flashback.

And that's pretty much it for early, siegel authored Superman stories. The Kents don't become important, regular characters until they HAVE to be, when the Superboy strip begins in 1945.

Krypton is treated with similar disdain. In early tellings of his origin, the rocket that brings Superman to Earth is completely destroyed. There's no Kryptonian artifacts, no way of telling where he comes from. WE - the readers - know Superman's an alien, but Superman himself doesn't find out until Superman #61 in 1948.

It may be hard to wrap your head around given how ubiquitous Krypton and the Kent's are today, but for the first TEN YEARS of publication, neither family - nothing of Superman's roots - were important parts of Superman stories.

All you have to do to prove me wrong is point out a few stories where they are.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I agree it negates nothing that would come later, but the conversation is about Superman getting back to his 'Jewish roots', and my assertion is that he never had any, not in any story written by Siegel.



    Quote:
    It was. You brought the Kents.


No, I didn't. I was replying to Gernot's question.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074


I've seen this page used before to argue the same, and the rigidity of thought is astounding.




R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,786



    Quote:
    I've seen this page used before to argue the same, and the rigidity of thought is astounding.


So...you got nothing then.

Again.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074


No, you've clearly bested me. I stand corrected. ;\)




R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,786



    Quote:
    No, you've clearly bested me. I stand corrected. ;\)


I have a feeling you let me off easy because you're far more intelligent and knowledgeable than you come across in your posts. ;\)


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074


Correct!




R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,786



    Quote:
    Correct!


Your honour, the prosecution rests.

(Mic drop).


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074


You tried the case with a microphone? It all makes sense now.




R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 10
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,786



    Quote:
    You tried the case with a microphone? It all makes sense now.


I could have tried it with a soggy turbot, while in my sleep during a long holiday in darkest Peru and I would have won, as you pleaded 'no contest' and chickened out of the argument.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074


I chickened out? What can I say to that? LOL!

(mic drop)




R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,786



    Quote:
    I chickened out? What can I say to that? LOL!


When I asked you to provide evidence, you said:


"One of the reasons I don't do diligence for others any longer i.e. "show evidence" is because of statements like you've just made".

This is the second time you've used this ploy in a discussion with me, and it's extremely transparent (Even another poster called you out over it): You had nothing. Nothing.

So, yet again you chickened out of the discussion by attempting to dismiss any need to defend your position.

So yes, I'll say it for a third time: You chickened out.

And I can provide evidence.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074



    Quote:
    This is the second time you've used this ploy in a discussion with me, and it's extremely transparent (Even another poster called you out over it): You had nothing. Nothing.



    Quote:
    So, yet again you chickened out of the discussion by attempting to dismiss any need to defend your position.



    Quote:
    So yes, I'll say it for a third time: You chickened out.



    Quote:
    And I can provide evidence.


I'm not sure if you can effectively use the "evidence" you're providing, as I specifically stated the reason why I don't do the diligence for others any longer. You have acted out, to the letter, why I do not, complete with sophomoric phrases and memes. Mind you, you don't provide evidence, you simply provide argument. The fact that another poster agrees with you doesn't make either of you correct, it just reinforces the sophomoric nature of your approach to discussion.

It's not for me show you the flaw in your own position, and it's unlikely that you will accept it once shown, particularly since you've drawn such conclusions in the first place.

(




R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 10
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,786



    Quote:
    I'm not sure if you can effectively use the "evidence" you're providing, as I specifically stated the reason why I don't do the diligence for others any longer. You have acted out, to the letter, why I do not, complete with sophomoric phrases and memes. Mind you, you don't provide evidence, you simply provide argument. The fact that another poster agrees with you doesn't make either of you correct, it just reinforces the sophomoric nature of your approach to discussion.



    Quote:
    It's not for me show you the flaw in your own position, and it's unlikely that you will accept it once shown, particularly since you've drawn such conclusions in the first place.


Don't give me that.

I can smell bullshit a mile off.

And you're full of it.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
liheibao


Member Since: Thu May 07, 2009
Posts: 3,074


Then let's just stop here. The moment foul language needs to be used, especially when debating about a hobby, it's not something I need to be a part of. Until next time. \(yes\)




R. I. P. Kato: A good friend to one who has so few
Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 7

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software