Comics don't always work realistically. Writers may not meant for Superman to have an amp just because he was close to the sun. It's all about writer's intentions. Is there any evidence that the writer intended for Superman to have an amp?
If not then does showings trump obvious intentions?
Zoom is powerful, but I honestly don't think he'd beat Superman, much less Superboy Prime, despite his fragile mentality.
I just don't think it's possible for him to put Clark down. Can he even hurt him with attacks? Maybe he can use some speed trick I'm forgetting to win, otherwise sooner or later, Prime tags him with a punch or an aoe attack.
We KNOW that Superman becomes more powerful the closer he is to the sun(this has been established several times now.) Thus an amp doesn't have to be explicitly mentioned for us to still know he became more powerful... Suggesting otherwise is to blatantly ignore his entire character history.
Example: if Popeye eats spinach, but doesn't explicitly say that he became stronger after doing so, does that mean he didn't get stronger? Obviously not. Why? Because we KNOW what spinach does to Popeye, thanks to previously-established showings... Same basic concept applies to Superman and the sun.
I understand this. But you haven't answered my question. Does writer's intentions trump what has been shown or established in the pass? If so then you are right. If not then you may be wrong here. I'm not sure either way, so that's why I'm asking
I do not believe the 'intent' of one writer should contradict/negate the entire established history of a character, no.
But again: an amp not being explicitly mentioned in that scene doesn't mean we cannot discern for ourselves what happens to Superman when he moves closer to the sun... As the same thing has happened to Supes everysingletime he's moved within close vicinity to sun on panel: his power is increased/amped. Tbh, the burden of proof would fall on you to prove that he wasn't amped in that scene, given his extensive history that suggests otherwise.