Finally, I catch up with the 'Superboy-Prime' saga...my thoughts

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.

Ya that's basically it - taking established characters and bending them over simply to create a shocking event is absolute bollocks.

I like Johns on GL stuff, but this event was a disaster.

I don't find it insulting as a reader to have a character like Superboy-Prime in comics, because I don't count myself amongst the fans who get upset about different portrayals throughout the history of the industry. Furthermore, I don't think Johns uses Prime's extreme hypocrisy and ignorance to represent the only alternative to current comics; in other words, I don't think that Johns is saying that Prime's (and therefore the raging fanboys') perspectives are so misguided that they just have to deal with the current state of things and that's that. The primary reason I don't believe this is the case is because despite being responsible for some of the dark turns in recent years, Johns' stories still tend to contain notions of heroes fighting for justice simply because it's the right thing to do. It may not be readily apparent, but I think the heroes are intentionally put in really difficult and dark situations in order to demonstrate how they can still believe in justice and good afterwards.

I think LunarKnight hit on the head, Superboy-Prime is pretty much the fan boys of the Silver/Golden age, quite literally, that can't stand that the characters have grown and evolved. Kal-L on the other hand represent the fans that get that the gold/silver age were good, and while he may not agree with them, they have their place too and he can see the good in them. Luthor on the other hand represents the want for a fusion of and the need to return to a less dark universe...

IC really is that happening...

Everything I've read of Superboy-Prime beyond that it seems some writers don't quite get that, but then the character is built around the raging fan boy anyways so it's not hard to write him right. I think though that too many people think that he is irredeemable at this point as a person... which is hard to argue because the likely hood that he'd listen to anyone is hard to dispute.

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.

Regarding consistency, I think it's important to keep in mind that if the writers of the Silver Age kept the characters the same from the Golden Age, and the Modern Age writers kept everything the same from the Silver Age, Batman would still be gunning down criminals and Superman would smack around Lois every once in a while. I don't have an issue with authors finding different interpretations and uses for characters over time, especially when that time can be measured in decades. However, even this criticism isn't exactly applicable, because the particular version of Superboy that became Superboy-Prime was created the same year that the original Crisis came out, so it isn't as if he already had legions of fans who were following him for decades that should have been offended by his portrayal in Infinite Crisis.

And I believe it's perfectly acceptable for an author to use a character as a symbol for their current assessment of a fanbase or any other portion of a population, really. I mean, it occurs to me that injecting those kind of ideas into stories is what writers are supposed to do. At the very least, I find Johns' approach to commentary preferable to that of other writers like Mark Millar and Alan Moore, because it doesn't lose that touch of noble heroism that is usually associated with the Golden and Silver Age.

SuperOz, Superboy-Prime's character is consistent in my opinion.

He has a chance to save the day by the side of his hero Kal-L.
He gives this up largely without thinking and follows the lead of Luthor and Kal-L
Later he realizes that what he saved was not what he thought he was and further it was tarnishing the name of his hero. Worse yet, he didn't grow up having super powers or having the responsibility or having any real role models to draw from so his love for Kal-L and wanting his world back was twisted.
This caused the outrage and such in IC and then the break down pretty much in other titles as he starts to realize he isn't living up to his name... So at this point it is a matter of does he think he himself can be redeemed and how accepting is he of that.

Luthor on the other hand has virtually no modus operandi to do what he did other than knowledge and time to plan out how to do it along with the god complex all Luthors seem to have...

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.

Somewhere I read that the original idea for Superboy Prime was going to be that he would join the Legion of Super Heroes at the end of Crisis and stay in the 30th Century. I really wish that had been done as that would have been neat-- especially as Prime was written as being a comic book fan. It would have been interesting if they had played on that approach to him: the fan dealing with the heroes he had read about in comics as "real" people.

How would he react the first time he got hurt in battle facing Validus? How would he handle living up the legend that Earth One Kal-El had established in the 30th Century? So much potential wasted ...

And you know, there's one thing about Prime that keeps coming back to me as a fan ...

He read comics. He's read about heroes dying and coming back to life all the time.

In his place, would it feel like murder to kill someone if you know that it could all be undone by the editorial edict?

Ummm

It is assumed that Lois was like in 60-80 and roughly 10 years passes between the two crisis. That makes her 70-90 years old and even under the best conditions, which even though it may be a "paradise" probably doesn't have the staff nor the technology to deal with old age so it isn't at all unreasonable to believe that she might die sooner rather than later and thats not considering the stress of dimension crossing and other stuff that is known to effect characters in the DCU.

We are left with no reason to believe that those characters even actually existed after that because death is "everlasting peace" too. it doesn't describe anything and really it's relative to who's talking. But that being said, even if all 4 characters were medical geniuses it is likely they wouldn't have the materials to treat any problems Lois might have.

Other characters...Kal-L is portrayed as having good intentions who realizes his mistake and one can understand how he came to that conclusion with the whole identity crisis and such. He believes he is doing the right thing, that the heroes aren't heroes... and thats how a lot of people felt within the world at that time so it makes sense.

As far as build up and how dark the situation really was...well it's possible that they could see not just the present but the future. Why is this important? Because in the future before IC there would have been a long dark period for earth... which is explored a little bit in Teen Titans. In the future they likely saw, most of the heroes has also died, and their replacements had tore the US apart and become more or less villains... so yeah, considering that, IC could have been seen as preventative to a degree on Superboy-Prime's and Luthor's part... and Superboy-Prime, may have even started out with noble goals but the deeper he got the more he dug himself into a hole and got treated as a villain.

Haven't you ever started something with the right intentions and ran into resistance and instead of backing down or letting cooler head prevail dug in and fought harder...only to find that they fought harder and gotten into a spiral of making worse and worse choices? That's pretty much what i think prime's character does.

Superboy-Prime and Alexander Luthor, Jr. were made specifically for Crisis, were essentially created to be shunted off, so I consider them cyphers than can be used for however DC feels like using them. And I can buy that Luthor being a conduit for Darkseid at the end of Crisis could have twisted him going forward.

Earth-2 Superman and Earth-2 Lois probably deserved to be left out of the whole thing.