the nature/nurture debate is almost as fraught as the religious one.
I think psychologists now do agree that individuals have some innate or genetically determined characteristics. All those studies of the 'twins separated at birth' have paid off.
What about kids who are raised by the same parents but who turn out to be quite different form each other with respect to characteristics like altruism, honesty, or even sense of humour, optimism vs pessimism or other traits?
So it's difficult to argue for sure that Clark is entirely a product of his upbringing.
Is altruism a learned behaviour or innate? Or a combination?
My understanding of the question's meaning is that it's a variation of the "how much can we change a character's 'canon' or mythic personality and still have people buy that character as *the character*. Just because she/he carried the same name and the same physical appearance, does that mean we will accept that person as 'the' character (canon or mythic or iconic - whatever term works here)?
A good example of that is the Smallville fandom's Chlois 'debate'. I gather some SVfans have rejected the SVcharacter called 'Lois Lane' because they don't see her personality or behaviour being 'Lois' like. But they do argue that a character called Chloe is in fact the "real" Lois Lane because she has all the Lois character traits and behaviours.
So same thing here with respect to the 'bad' characteristic (in this particular case the killing of people for reasons that serve no greater societal need) . How much are we prepared to accept (or cut him some slack) as Clark Kent/Superman.
At what point has he become a completely different character? Maybe Batman or Spawn or even Smallville Clark Kent or Lord Nor?
Maybe to put it another way is to ask: What *is* it that defines Clark Kent/Superman - his personality traits or his name and physical appearance and super powers?
Of course, I probably have this all wrong.
c.
