A completely awesome essay ...

[Rath Darkblade]

... Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex by Larry Niven, of "Ringworld" fame. This essay explores why Superman never had kids.

BUT! Before you read, be aware: this essay pulls very few punches. It uses adult language to describe the act of making love, as well as the consequences. Please do not read this anywhere near kids.

Please also note that I say "adult language", not "pornographic". There is nothing here that would be considered "dirty" in the slightest. So don't worry - I doubt you'd be in trouble with a priest of any kind.

Finally -- I know this probably belongs in the Marvel/DC thread, but I simply couldn't find it. So if you know where it is, please feel free to move it there because I don't want to clutter up the board. *blush*

Have fun reading!

[DeadPoolX]

Niven's essay was written in 1971 and part of the problem is it's extremely dated, only having Pre-Crisis information to work with.

You'll see people reference something called "the Crisis" and also use the terms "Pre-Crisis" and "Post-Crisis" a lot. In 1985, there was a universe-wide event (in other words, a multi-comic book storyline) in DC Comics called The Crisis on Infinite Earths. It was DC's attempt to clean up nearly 50 years worth of inconsistent and often-conflicting information.

After the Crisis was done, the multiverse (an infinite number of Earths within their own dimensions holding different superheroes) was combined into one universe with one Earth. As part of this change, most characters were rebooted and altered to varying degrees.

Superman, for instance, was decreased in power. He was still one of the most powerful characters in DC, but he could no longer toss planets around, which he literally could in the Pre-Crisis days. Even how Superman gained his powers was changed. In the Pre-Crisis continuity, Superman immediately gained all of his powers by exposure to the sun (even ridiculous powers, like Super-Ventriloquism, and no, I'm not making that up). This is why little Clark Kent was fully-powered in Pre-Crisis.

However, in Post-Crisis this was changed so that it took time for Superman to absorb the solar radiation from the sun. His powers didn't start developing until his teenage years and even then they didn't all appear at once. Superman stored solar radiation to use whenever he made use of active or passive abilities, such as heat vision or near-invulnerability. Superman could deplete his storage of solar radiation, which is what happened during his fight (and subsequent death) with Doomsday. Later on this, this was somewhat retconned to make Doomsday a Kryptonian experiment so that he could come back to life the same way Superman had.

In Post-Crisis, the Kent farm wouldn't have been damaged by Clark, or at least, nowhere near as badly as it would've been in Pre-Crisis.

Also, the "slow storage of solar radiation due to continued exposure to the sun" dynamic in Post-Crisis means that, theoretically-speaking, Lois Lane could carry Superman's baby to term since the child's exposure to the sun would be severely limited or blocked entirely. Even if the kid managed to get some exposure, the nine months it takes to gestate and give birth would be long over before anything "super" started appearing.

That said... in 2011, DC once again revamped its lineup with its "New 52" continuity. This restored the multiverse and with it a whole bunch of BS.

Unsurprisingly, the New 52 proved extremely unpopular with fans, and yet another reboot created a combination of the New 52 and Post-Crisis. At least that's what I understand. Aside from the odd graphic novel I pick up at the library, I haven't read comics in a long time, so for all I know Superman could have fur and rabbit ears now.

Anyway, my point in this long post is that since Niven wrote that essay in 1971, his concept of Superman growing up and experiencing issues don't take into account the many, many changes to the DC universe since then and therefore offers a very limited viewpoint. It's understandable since he had no way of knowing what would occur in the future, but at best that essay could only be viewed as an entertaining (if not somewhat disturbing) read and not the tongue-in-cheek critical analysis it was originally designed to be back in the 1970s.

[Tawmis]

That said... in 2011, DC once again revamped its lineup with its "New 52" continuity. This restored the multiverse and with it a whole bunch of BS.
Unsurprisingly, the New 52 proved extremely unpopular with fans, and yet another reboot created a combination of the New 52 and Post-Crisis. At least that's what I understand. Aside from the odd graphic novel I pick up at the library, I haven't read comics in a long time, so for all I know Superman could have fur and rabbit ears now.

You are right - after New 52 was "Rebirth."

That said, "New 52" provided a great jump on point for people who were overwhelmed at looking to pick up a DC Comic and see Batman was on issue "739" and Superman was on "863" (those aren't the exact numbers, but they were up there - Edit: Batman was on 709, so I was 30 issues off and Superman was on on 904).

So that's a lot of continuity to even try to cope with, if you're new to DC Comics. It made it difficult to tell where you should jump in on.

DC's New 52, as DPX said, kind of wiped the slate clean, started everything with #1 - allowing new folks to jump on easily.

Unfortunately, those who'd been collecting DC forever - were suddenly alienated.

I was one of those people, who had never really faithfully collected DC Comics, until the New 52. Then I collected every single title. I had been a Marvel Zombie, pretty much until that point (well, if you excuse the 90's Image phase)

Until the end of each one, when New 52 came to a close. I collected a large majority of the Rebirth part - but those quickly dropped off.

And with that, my eventual ending of really collecting. Other than a limited series called "ElfQuest" and "Ragnarok."