Posts: 1099 Location: Cheektowaga, NY Joined: 29.07.05
Posted on 15-09-2006 19:04
PLOT:
Opening with the young Clark Kent on a date, the novel takes an entirely fresh approach to the emergence of his superpowers and the start of his newspaper career, following him from rural 1930s Kansas across america to Hollywood in its golden age, and then to New York City. He meets a worldly Lois Lane and conniving political boss Lex Luthor, and begins his battles against criminal masterminds, mad scientists, and supervillains inspired by fascists.
REVIEW:
Tom DeHaven did, starting in 1984, a Cartoonist trilogy in which the second volume was about the rise of comic books in the depression and one of the things about that volume was how good DeHaven captured the feel of 1930s in his work. So it was natural for DC Comics, after reading that, to send a letter and then phone to DeHaven if he would be interested in doing a Superman novel set in his original period of the 1930s since no one has went back and done him back in that period.
Of course there have many novels about Superman. The first being the 1942 George Lowther novel called "The Adventures of Superman" which was still Golden Age as DeHaven's novel but it was the 1940s Superman which differed from Siegel and Shuster's version.
This book was on my mind for the longest time. I have had novels based on arcs like the Batman: Knightfall series but for some reason, back then, I couldn't picture what I was reading and that was wired. But after good reviews of this novel, I wanted to get it but delayed it for the longest time. Finally I got it, when the paperback version was released, and after I lost a contest to win a free copy. Then finally read it.
First off, after reading this: Tom DeHaven did a nice job. Not one moment did I think it was the 1990s, or the 2000s, it WAS the 1930s. From everywhere to the dialogue to the writing about certain places or events, it was the 1930s. DeHaven did alot of work on the time period including the people and how they acted plus how peope farmed and I believe, in the three years he was making this novel, he did a great job.
Tom DeHaven did mention that his original version of the novel came in at around 1000 pages. The stuff that was taken out were the more about Lex Luthor and the paralells between him and Clark and the host of new characters we meet including more learning curves for Clark on his powers (learning where he is when he flys). I would love to see, and read, a director's cut of this book for many reasons. Some in which I will get into when I get there.
Superman was born, literally, in the 1930s. He fits well then and him in the Golden Age, or him from 1938-1941(2) somewhere, is the version I love and gets more points than today's modern Superman. Maybe because his powers isn't all invincable and he didn't go in space and he had limitations on himself and no kryptonite "OH MY GOD!" moments since that didn't exist from the start. It did appear in the radio show but not in the comics until 1948. And he didn't fly when he started but once he did, it was still grounded as his flying was an extended jump. And in the book, when he is thrown from First Avenue to the East River from the robot, he tries to stay on track with whats going on and he's limping. I get it. Last but not least; another reason is that, like Batman & Spider-Man, I could not only relate to him but I could, actually....somewhat, be him.
In this novel, we see a much more human Clark Kent than we've seen in the comics or movies or anything of that matter. He screws up, he breaks the law, he's into women (he does sleep with one woman before he meets Lois), he calls Willi a pain in the ass, whom is prolly the influence he is getting to do all this. This is something we have not seen or use to seeing from Clark. This is also most likely to the fact that he is born off an isolated form in Kansas and the idea of being a hero to the world and how he would become a hero. Another thing from this book and how Clark is protrayed is something I'm somewhat tired seeing all the time is Clark being the perfect angel. I mean, as a HUMAN, you mean to tell me it would be hard for me to imagine that if I had superpowers, I wouldn't stretch the limits, only if it's just a little bit, to my advantage. It was nice to finally see that here in this book. You still see Clark, as the years go by, start to become the boy scout that he is. But at his age of early twenties he will do stuff for fun.
The way he acts in the book, on how he feels and thinks about the faith his parents had and the idea of the afterlife and how he questions all this, which is the reason why he leaves Smallville because he knows there is something else out there than where he is, its not in no way like us where we, or some of us (I can't speak for all), doubt the afterlife or the idea of there being a God, when he thinks this, he comes out as alien, like his alien nature was coming out, which is what he is. That shows that this book has the immigrant theme like the original concept. How Clark can't relate with anyone and feels alienated and because of the fact that he feels alone and how the kids around him get stuff (like headaches or any other sickness) that he never had. Things like that that would make him look at the world differently.
Going inside Clark's mind is what a novel can do (and comics) that movies don't do.
There is a difference from this novel and all the other stories that are origin stories, stories on Superman or superheroes in general, at the end of the book: Clark Kent doesn't really, or fully, or publicly, become Superman. Its not like in other stories where at the end, everything is there and where it is. This is probably due to the fact that originally the book was suppose to end on the cover date of Action Comics #1: June 1938. But DeHaven stopped short and instead tied up up the themes with his favorite play: Our Town, that preimered in 1938. He is not quite there yet but he is Superman enough to take care of things and help others.
There is a Siegel & Shuester reference as Clark loves to write Science Fiction stories, just like they did. Also, he reveals, the beginning of the book, that there is a story he was working on based on a dream where a scientist and his wife realize the planet is gonna be destroyed and plan to send their son away to save him. Now while his dream has differences, the planet being destroyed is Earth for example, we all know what this really is. It would be surprising, once Clark finds out that dream is not only real but how he got here, how he handles it.
Pa Kent , in the book, feels like he failed as a father. This is because of how different Clark was when he was growing up and the comparsion between him and the other kids. He knew what to do if Clark caught a splitter, or broke his arm or his neck, fell from a horse and broke his legs. But with someone like Clark, Pa Kent goes over there thinking something was wrong, looks at Clark and sees: no bruises, no bleeding, no broken bones, nothing. He also feels like he wasn't a good enough father to help him over the questions Clark had about himself because he, himself, didn't do how to answer any of them. I mean, what if you went over to your son and he said that he caught a bullet or he punched a wall with his own fist or he damaged a railing just by holding on to it, and he was scared and wanted to know what was going on, what would you say? You could say "it'll be okay", but would you believe that yourself? Thats what Pa Kent was feeling.
Lois Lane is written like a '30s woman. That is perfect because it's a book set into the '30s and it wouldn't work if she was an '90s or 2000's kind of woman. Her coming from a military family, I don't come from one myself but I gotta tell you; from other stories I've read, along with this, its must suck. The idea of her father, a military man, telling her what not to do which is not only humane things but normal things like not listening to music or dating, I felt bad for her because it seemed like she was restricted from doing anything.
I'm glad Lois managed to be her own woman and although she isn't technially a feminist, her reasons she is who she is and acts the way she acts point to that. Plus, she knows how to fight and how to use guns so this Lois isn't a damsel in distress (although the Golden Age stories never had her like that. The Silver Age on the other hand: oh yeah). Also, while she is serious, she does things that are funny. The scene where her father is making sure she's not drinking nor smoking and she's getting rid of them quick and warning Willi not to speak (by waving her index finger) is funny. And how Willi says she should get fresh food once in a while while she is doing dishes and she throws the towel at his face and sticks out her tounge after she grabs his gum and he says that should've ask, its funny and its cute.
When it comes to her and Clark and how she sees him, it is exactly what inspired Jerry Siegel to create Lois & Clark and in turn what I always went through growing up, Lois sees Clark as someone she sorta doesn't care he exists. It might be because he is a farmer, she is a city woman. And while she is competitive, because that is what she is, and does come off as hard to Clark, in no way is she coldhearted. She says she's sorry when he was planning to get a job using the story that Lois wanted to tell her editors first and when Clark cries a little at the play of Our Town, she hugs him. You can't be coldhearted and do those things nor believe Clark, as Superman, could fall in love with her if she was like that. And it's also, because of how we learn about her through the novel, where she comes from which explains how she acts the way she acts.
Willi Berg is a character created for the novel. He is an adventure guy, someone in on the action. His way or his attitude may expalin how Clark acts when he's around him. In case you didn't notice, or figure it out, Willi Berg is a Jimmy Olsen-like character. Originally, when Willi goes on the run, his alias was suppose to be Jimmy Olsen. But, as said by Tom DeHaven, DC really didn't like that. He wasn't suppose to be THE Jimmy Olsen, otherwise Lois wouldn't date him if he was. But if that was the case, and the scene where Lois gets the name "William Boring" was the same, and nothing was altered from version to version, then maybe the bartender would've been the real Jimmy Olsen. And that would've been a nice reference as Lois meets the guy whom she will take his name from, be the guy who will soon be next to her and Clark later on. That may have beem interesting.
If there is one thing about the Golden Age of Superman, and others like Batman, is that when they started out nothing was "there and will always be". Changes occured during the comics' beginning before the things they liked became the things that stayed. The novel plays with both of what it was like back then and what they became and stayed today. So for Clark Kent/Superman: he is a vigilante like he was starting out but does start to become his boy scout version. Back then, Superman (and Batman) protected New York. It wasn't Metropolis, although the novel kinda paints it as it. The origin was that Ma Kent died first then Pa Kent who told Clark on his deathbed to use his powers for good, the novel has that. And in the Golden Age, Lois & Clark worked for the Daily Star. In the book, it is the Daily Planet and while there is nothing on the Daily Star, the Planet's editors are Perry White AND George Taylor.
As the storyline goes, it is a Coming of Age story. You see Clark growing up and from the confused young man develop into the man that will become known as one of your greatest heroes. One of the reviews I read before getting the book was that one person's problem was that there was hardly any Superman in the book. From that, the first thing that popped in my mind was the Tim Burton Batman film, how Batman himself wasn't in it all that much and I thought the book was going to be like that. After reading it, and going back to that review, what that person really meant was: there was hardly any Clark Kent in the costume as Superman. Thats a problem I kinda have with people who love Batman but don't care for Bruce Wayne, or love Superman but don't care for Superman. Its because they look of these two people (the identites) as different people when in fact they're the same guy. You still get action scenes with Clark with his powers and if people won't see that, then I don't know what to say.
There is flaws, but they are like "maybes" from me. Maybe that idea of Jimmy Olsen I mentioned above would've been nice. Maybe the battles beign either seen or bigger would've nice as well as more Superman, but that feels like I'm goign against what I said myself in the above paragraph. And maybe the original version would've been nice to read, but that leads to a question everyone would have: do I want to read a Superman book that is a thousand pages in length?
It's Superman! is a story that is new and fresh with characters you can live with. It is a Golden Age Superman storyline (origin/prequel to Action Comics #1, etc). One thing though is that this isn't a total prequel but a semi-prequel to Action #1. In that, the storyline or some of it or the idea that that's when Superman first appeared, will occur after this book but differently. If you like Smallville, and can handle the fact that its Clark Kent and not Superman, and have seen the old 1940s Superman cartoons and loved what you saw and the feel of them, then you'll like this.
RATING: 8/10
You don't get it, boy... this isn't a mudhole... it's an operating table.
(crack!)
And I'm the surgeon.
- Batman - The Dark Knight Returns
Posts: 130 Location: Oklahoma City Joined: 11.09.06
Posted on 16-09-2006 17:25
WOW, You yourself wrote a novel, ha ha. Thanx for the review, ya did a good job. I have been thinking about reading this book too but find it hard to have the time. I love reading. I have read a few other books by DeHaven, I think the title of one was DEPRESSION FUNNIES, which was great! I highly recommend that to the board's readers! While reading it you DO feel like you're in the 1930's....he's a great writer.
I got an advance copy of this back in August of last year from a sales rep with Chronicle Books (the publisher of the hardcover, Random House picked it ujp for paperback). I trudged through it, but was thoroughly unimpressed. It was just really boring, and took way too long to really get going.
Since the paperback is about half the price of the hardcover, I could recommend it to a big Superman fan, but if you are a pretty casual fan, you will get bored. I am a pretty big Superman fan, and still got really bored.
BATMAN: Yesterday, Today, & Beyond, all of it's sub-sites, or hosted sites are in no way associated, or affiliated with DC Comics, Time Warner or any of it's divisions.
Items cataloged in merchandise sections are not for sale. The downloading of video game ROMs is for backup and testing purposes only. If you do not own the actual game, the ROM is to be deleted from your hard drive within 24 hours.
Any money that may be made from Amazon Associates, advertisements, or affiliate programs will be contributed to the maintaining of this website, to provide the fans with the best that we can offer.
Home
