And Alan Moore's "For the Man Who Has Everything" as well, though that of course, is The Bronze Age.

During a fever dream, Superman vicariously experiences Krypton's continued survival through the persona of his father whose prophecy of destruction no longer spells the end of his race.  However, rather than partaking in some idyllic fairytale, Superman bears witness to one mounting disaster after another thanks to his subconscious mind warning him of danger in the real world.

Sound familiar?

Of the three Superman stories written by Alan Moore, this is the only one I don't dislike.  The self-sabotage Superman inflicts upon himself serves a purpose - as his subconscious mind reduces his dream state to a nightmare, his conscious mind is allowed to acknowledge an imminent threat in the real world.  I get that.

The purpose of Byrne's "Return to Krypton" though?  To teach his Superman the following lesson:

"Since I've learned of my alien origins, I've cherished the notion – the conceit, really – that the race of Krypton were somehow above the pettiness that's plagued humankind all these years. Now I've been shown a version of what might have been, had I not been the sole survivor of that doomed world. And much as I'm loath to admit it, I'm afraid my vision was accurate. A race of supermen cannot help but be a race of conquerors."

I've mentioned before how offensive I found it that by Byrne's own admission, Superman's little speech at the end of his Man of Steel mini-series (which had him coming to the realization that he was first and foremost an Earthling) was brought about by Byrne's own feeling that adopted children who later sought out their biological parents are "ungrateful little shits".  I can't help but think that two years later, Byrne is still grinding that ax.
 
I mean, there's no reason why the post-Crisis Superman should have to come from a race of perfect beings (and really, "pettiness" and "Krypton" is pretty much baked into the Superman mythos what with The Science Council laughing in Jor-El's face when he proclaimed Krypton's doom from the very start) but does the grandeur and wonder of Krypton really need to be sacrficed just to appease Byrne's distaste for all those stories which had Superman pining away for Krypton?  And how does Superman reach the conclusion that "my vision was accurate" anyway?  Is he really citing a nightmare he had as proof of anything?

It really feels as if Byrne isn't so much writing a story but picking at an imaginary scab - something which he's done before with the character.  Byrne felt that there was a common misconception that had people believing that because Superman can't see through lead it must be invisible to him?  Well, here's a 20 page Joker story written just to dispel that misconception (which I don't think anyone other than perhaps Byrne himself was ever under).  Byrne believes that Superman's exclamations of "Great Rao!" were a slap in the face to his adopted planet?  Well, here's a version of Krypton which deserved to blow up.  Even the issue of Action Comics #600 which preceded this one contained that Wonder Woman story in which Superman declares that she's a God while he's just a farm boy and therefore way out of her league.  Did we really need to see Superman grabbing Wonder Woman and sticking his tongue down her throat just so Byrne can once again establish that Krypton = bad, Earth = good?

Again - Byrne can do whatever he likes with his Superman, but "Return to Krypton" just felt like another instance of him venting about something he didn't like about the character and not really offering any solution in return.  Even the way Superman's dream just peters out without resolving anything feels like Byrne had tired himself out shaking his fist at some old comics and decided he was just going to end his story there so he could go lie down.