Inter-Action

"QfK" Archives

Superman #667 Here are Kurt Busiek's answers to questions fans put to him about "Superman #667" and other relevant topics:

Kurt's Answers

Van Banoovong (vbanoovong@yahoo.com) asks:
Have we seen the last of Subjekt-17 after this battle against Superman?

Kurt: I wouldn't think so, particularly since he swears to come back.



shaxpere (shaxpere37@netzero.com) asks:
I really enjoyed this issue, Kurt. There have been more than a few fill in issues on your run. Are all the books in continuous order with the numbering system, or should #667 take place right after #664 and so on.

Kurt: Glad you liked it, Shax. Aside from #665, which was a full-book flashback to Superman's early years, and those portions of other issues that are flashbacks, all the issues of Superman I've written take place in order, at least so far. #667 happens shortly after #666, for instance -- that's why the Phantom Stranger and Zatanna are still around in Metropolis. We didn't make a big thing of that, since we wanted #666 to stand on its own, but figured readers would see that they turned up in #666 and were still around in #667 and figure they stayed around to help a bit.



Gregory (mcneill_35@yahoo.com) asks:
Is anything from the recent storyarc in the books will be connected to both the Final Crisis and the 70th Anniversary celebration of Superman next year?

Kurt: If there is, I wouldn't give it away ahead of time, so I'll just say "Maybe," and we'll see what comes.



Noah Treadwell (email address withheld by request) asks:
Given the nature of superhero killing in the DCU, and given the fact that a while back a HUGE (and very poignant) point was made about how when a superhero kills even one person, no matter how much they deserve it, on camera, it harms the whole superhero community, why have Superman kill Subjekt-17 on camera?

Kurt: Subjekt-17's not dead.



Jeff Javorie (email address withheld by request) asks:
Why do you believe Superman would have such a critical lapse of judgment so as to beat a villain to death on camera, given said storyline, no matter how much that villain goads him, and why didn't Superman simply pull off from the fight and allow Subjekt-17 to live? Fighting someone is in the moment. Beating someone repeatedly until they sustain injuries that will cause their death (as Superman clearly does) is quite another.

Kurt: Did you two guys get a variant issue, or something? Nowhere in the story does it suggest that Subjekt-17 is dead. He's still conscious -- and talking, for that matter -- when he vanishes. The challenge he issues to Superman isn't for a battle to the death, Superman fights until Subjekt-17 yields, then is planning to take him to medical attention when Subjekt-17 vanishes. The last panel Subjekt-17 appears in, he says, "You hurt me. You won...your prize. But I will...come back. And you will pay...with the rest of them." We've even established, back in #662, that he can be very seriously injured and still recover. That doesn't sound like a dead guy to me.

For that matter, the cameras don't arrive 'til the fight's over.

Anyone who thought Subjekt-17 died, please post a comment as to why you thought that Superman "clearly" kills Subjekt-17, and why you thought the battle happened on camera. I'm very curious to know.



Neal Bailey (email address withheld by request) asks:
Given that Lana Lang in previous comics has always been a homemaker, for the most part (barring her time as Pete Ross' wife and thusly the first lady), how can she possibly be considered the prime candidate for running Lexcorp? With all due respect, I know there are two potential excuses, it being "New Earth" (and thus we have no idea if she ran major corporations before this) and that she has some management experience as the president's wife (something I don't necessarily buy), but after such a long time without this being explored through story, can you please give us a hint as to why Lana is the CEO of Lexcorp and how this is sensible or coherent? I understand that time should be allowed for development, but this, to me, would be like suddenly making Lois Lane the manager of a burger stand. Is it in the realm of possibility? Yeah. But it's hard to swallow without some framework.

Kurt: In previous continuities, Lana's been a homemaker and a TV reporter, among other things. In this one, she states flat-out in #655 that she'd been a director on the boards of charitable organizations, including the Red Cross, during her time in Washington, and that she's got the kind of connections LexCorp wanted. They expect her to slow the fall, not to prevent it -- and to do so more through her connections in Washington and among their creditors (many of whom she'd have dealt with as contributors to the charities she's been a director for). She hopes to do more than that, of course.

As for experience prior to her time in Washington, all we've seen is that while Clark's starting out in Metropolis in Action Comics #850, Lana's piling up the frequent-flier miles traveling on business for the family bank, and is apparently skilled enough to be sent to Los Angeles as a rep of the bank. But there's a lot of room between there and the present day for her to have built up experience.

As for Lois running a burger stand, if we'd introduced her in the new continuity as a brand-new hire at a burger stand, had her say that she'd gotten the job due to her having substantial burger-flipping experience while living in Sausalito, showed in the past that she was a fast-food cashier in Pittsdale when Clark was starting out as a reporter and never had her say that she'd been a reporter or appear as a reporter -- well, it'd be an unusual choice, but it wouldn't be unsupported by the stories.

You've seen so far in the New Earth continuity that Lana's family situation is dramatically different from either the Silver Age canon or the post-Crisis run -- along with the differences in the histories of Clark, Lex, Jimmy and others -- so it shouldn't be that much of a stretch for her employment history to have been different in this continuity as well.

[Incidentally, I should mention that we don't know whether she was ever "the president's wife" -- all that we know for sure about Pete is that he did have a Washington political career and that he got tangled up in the Ruin situation, which led to his divorce from Lana. Whether his career parallels his pre-Infinite Crisis career exactly, or is as different as many of the other characters, remains to be explored.]



Thanks! Happy Birthday from everyone at the Superman Homepage!

Kurt: My pleasure. And Happy Birthday back, Steve, since yours is the same day as mine!



"QfK" Archives

You'll find links to our archives of past Questions and Answers on the main "QfK" page.