Who really is Clark Kent/Superman?

[stargazer01]

Do you agree/disagree with this statement? Who is the character to you?

I find it fascinating analysing this.


"I always say to people who question the nature of the character that he was born Kal-El, he became Superman but, he was raised/IS Clark Kent. Kal is what makes him "super" and Clark is what makes him a "man".'

[Sacred Knight]

I think its more complex than that. At least, I think it should be. I mean, in general there's some truth to it, but I see Kal as more than just his abilities, and I see Clark as more than just a regular guy. Hell in a way he has three identities in this regard because who he is as Clark in reality is also not how he plays it in public. He has a really fascinating and underplayed identity crisis at its core, and instead of tackling that and exploring it, most just want to go to splitting it evenly right down the middle nice and clean. I'm not suggesting he should be portrayed as unsure in other arenas by any stretch of the imagination. I like a confident, sure Superman in his methods and his ideals for the most part. Just in regards to the amalgamation of his identities, they're so intertwined its not so easy to just find the point where one stops and the other starts because that's just now how it operates.

In fact in a day and age in which how one identifies has become a big thing in society, I can think of no better time in which to explore this and use it as a metaphor.

[Robanker]

To be as succinct as possible, Superman and Clark are both extensions of who he actually is. Much like with Batman, it's lazy to just say he's one identity and the other is an act. The actual guy is somewhere in the middle and each "face" feeds into the proper identity. If the real Bruce Wayne identity is the man in the cave who talks to Alfred, the real Clark Kent is the man who talks to Ma and Pa Kent or his wife Lois. It's a blend of the two.

That's my take, anyway.

[seismic-2]

In the Silver Age, the character was usually written so that Superman was the real person, and Clark Kent was his disguise. In contemporary stories, the character is more nearly written so that Clark Kent is who he is and Superman is what he does. Different authors' mileage may vary, of course.

[Kuwagaton]

Whatever you call him, he's an extraordinary man who disguises as an ordinary man in order to stick closer to the world he protects. Being able to have anything makes him a man who is want for nothing, and so he fights a never ending battle with the luxury of basically any resource he needs to utilize.

He's got a mildly sweet sass and an open lid on the jug of confidence he's spent his whole life filling as the ultimate man, and while he's as silly and imperfect as any being of his intelligence, he's also ersatz ambassador for metahumans. His experience and intuition make him a good example and he's as pleased with others helping each other as he is pleased to help them himself. Kal, Clark, or Superman? Not strictly any, but still definitely all. Pick the circumstances of his upbringing and you'll get a particular answer. Same nature, different nurture.

[Ascended]

Do you agree/disagree with this statement? Who is the character to you?

I find it fascinating analysing this.


"I always say to people who question the nature of the character that he was born Kal-El, he became Superman but, he was raised/IS Clark Kent. Kal is what makes him "super" and Clark is what makes him a "man".'

I heartily disagree with the statement.

Myself, I don't think its an "either-or, this percentage or that" thing. Kal-El's personality is a complex spectrum, and who he is at any given moment is dictated by the situation. And regardless of the situation, there will be elements of his personality that he plays up, and some he plays down, and probably a couple he's fabricating completely. I think modern writers who try to say that he's both "Clark" and "Superman" equally have the right idea, but dont make it fluid enough. Clark is a highly compartmentalized pile of personality traits and hobbies and habits that he can open or close, emphasis or downplay, as needed. His core traits are always present of course, but express themselves differently depending on what he's doing.

Just as you are different at work than you are at home than you are with your friends, but it's always you (just with some things played up or down) Clark is many different shades of people too....but he's Superman, so it's on that higher, bigger scope and the variation is greater.

[Jon Clark]

To me it's a game of semantics. There is a person who I think of as the true person. It's the guy Lois married, the one who helped Jonathan Kent on the farm and the one who has the frenemy relationship with Batman.

Pre-Crisis mainstream that was Superboy/man. Clark was the real person at his core but he was also a string of mannerisms added in to fool those not in the know. He seemed from an early age to separate which role he was in. Except with the Legion or the Kents he was always putting on some level of an act as "Clark". It wasn't 100% a lie as in a lot of ways Clark and Superman were very similar- generous, polite, good natured, intelligent. But the majority of the time he had the glasses on he was more guarded and trying to shape his actions to fit that role.

Post-Crisis the equivalent was called "Clark". He never had a reason to act anything but natural around people until he became Superman. He didn't grow up trying to hide himself in most situations. He didn't openly use his powers, but he also wasn't trying to craft his actions to hide that the powers existed. He was his natural self all the time. So to the extent he used a personality or persona to play up the differences it would be by making Superman act differently than Clark would.

So if I was trying to put both the Pre and Post Crisis Supermen in a story side-by-side I'd lean towards making Post-Clark and Pre-Superman more similar that any other combination. Both Clarks would be the biggest contrast and both Supermen would have slightly different "voices". The Pre-Clark and Post Superman might come closest to somehow splitting Superman's basic character in two.

[Masterff]

Read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Kent

Debate over true Identity...

Its all explained..

Its basically:

1. Superman Real/Clark Mask
2. Clark Real/Superman Mask
3. Clark Mask/Superman Mask/Kal El Real


I think Nr. 3 might be ACTUALLY working..

[bat39]

To be as succinct as possible, Superman and Clark are both extensions of who he actually is. Much like with Batman, it's lazy to just say he's one identity and the other is an act. The actual guy is somewhere in the middle and each "face" feeds into the proper identity. If the real Bruce Wayne identity is the man in the cave who talks to Alfred, the real Clark Kent is the man who talks to Ma and Pa Kent or his wife Lois. It's a blend of the two.

That's my take, anyway.

Yeah, that's kinda how I've always seen it.

I think the interesting question is where Kal-El comes into the picture. Is the Superman persona closer to the Kal-El side of thing or to Clark Kent?

I mean, Superman literally wears a costume made of Kryptonian materials and his symbol is, in many versions, the symbol of the House of El or the Kryptonian word for 'Hope'. His headquarters is a Kryptonian home/lab. His powers are a result of his Kryptonian heritage. And as Superman, he can publicaly embrace the identity of Kal-El, the last son of Krypton. The world sees him as an alien - largely as an alien savior come to earth, but in some cases as a menace and a potential invader.

But then there are versions of Superman where that persona isn't so closely tied to Kal-El. Consider the Golden Age, where he wasn't aware of his heritage. His drive for heroism stemmed from his upbringing by the Kents. His suit was made of Kryptonian materials, but he wasn't really aware of that (in at least one Golden Age story, its stated that he developed the indestructible material for the suit himself). The S stood for nothing other than 'Superman'. And the narration of those early origin stories makes it clear that he's Clark Kent through and through - that its Clark's upbringing and desire to make the world a better place that leads to the birth of Superman. His Kryptonian heritage is just something he learns about years later. This was the case Post-Crisis as well - his desire to be a hero stemmed from the Kents, Martha designed the costume (which was made of human materials in this version), and he was Superman for years before learning of his Kryptonian heritage, which he then rejected for a while.

I think the role of Kal-El in this complex matrix of Superman's identity isn't discussed nearly enough. And to my mind, its a question of who or what influenced his decision to become Superman more. If a hologram of Jor-El is what drives him to become Superman, complete with a ready-made Kryptonian suit, then you can argue that Superman is more tied to Kal-El. But if its mainly Jonathan and Martha Kent influencing him to become Superman, then you can argue that Superman is more of a heroic extension of Clark. Or perhaps the answer lies midway somewhere. Perhaps, later in life, Clark realizes that being Superman is also a way of honoring his birth planet and the legacy of the House of El - even though the persona was created by Clark Kent.

[Jon Clark]

Yeah, that's kinda how I've always seen it.

I think the interesting question is where Kal-El comes into the picture. Is the Superman persona closer to the Kal-El side of thing or to Clark Kent?

I mean, Superman literally wears a costume made of Kryptonian materials and his symbol is, in many versions, the symbol of the House of El or the Kryptonian word for 'Hope'. His headquarters is a Kryptonian home/lab. His powers are a result of his Kryptonian heritage. And as Superman, he can publicaly embrace the identity of Kal-El, the last son of Krypton. The world sees him as an alien - largely as an alien savior come to earth, but in some cases as a menace and a potential invader.

But then there are versions of Superman where that persona isn't so closely tied to Kal-El. Consider the Golden Age, where he wasn't aware of his heritage. His drive for heroism stemmed from his upbringing by the Kents. His suit was made of Kryptonian materials, but he wasn't really aware of that (in at least one Golden Age story, its stated that he developed the indestructible material for the suit himself). The S stood for nothing other than 'Superman'. And the narration of those early origin stories makes it clear that he's Clark Kent through and through - that its Clark's upbringing and desire to make the world a better place that leads to the birth of Superman. His Kryptonian heritage is just something he learns about years later. This was the case Post-Crisis as well - his desire to be a hero stemmed from the Kents, Martha designed the costume (which was made of human materials in this version), and he was Superman for years before learning of his Kryptonian heritage, which he then rejected for a while.

I think the role of Kal-El in this complex matrix of Superman's identity isn't discussed nearly enough. And to my mind, its a question of who or what influenced his decision to become Superman more. If a hologram of Jor-El is what drives him to become Superman, complete with a ready-made Kryptonian suit, then you can argue that Superman is more tied to Kal-El. But if its mainly Jonathan and Martha Kent influencing him to become Superman, then you can argue that Superman is more of a heroic extension of Clark. Or perhaps the answer lies midway somewhere. Perhaps, later in life, Clark realizes that being Superman is also a way of honoring his birth planet and the legacy of the House of El - even though the persona was created by Clark Kent.

Again to me it is semantics.

Kal-El is just a convenient label for him if you think that the person he truly is differs from either the Planet reporter or the world-saving hero. It's not about his relationship to Krypton.

It's like the Batman thing. If you call the socialite dilatant "Bruce Wayne" in order to differentiate it from the person who spent years training to avenge his parent's death, you aren't implying that the real person isn't interested in Bruce's relatives or business. You are just separating the public Bruce from the private Bruce. The problem is that it's hard to discuss both the public persona and the real person if you call both by the same name.

And if you are talking about the boy Jonathan and Martha raised, the public superhero plus the Metropolis reporter you can't call two of them by the same name. If "Clark" is the reporter, exaggerated tics and all. "Superman" is the aloof hero who never breaks a sweat when Luthor threatens the Planet staff. Then what do you call the person who hangs out at the Kent farm with Lois acting like neither of them? Kal-El is the closest description- who that guy would be 24/7 if he didn't have to fool the public in either ID.

[Jim Kelly]

As a shorthand, it's easy to use Kal-El as a way of saying there's this one unified character and there are these two aspects of that character--Clark Kent and Superman.

However, for me I always think of Kal-El as the little baby from Krypton. So, in Freudian terms, Kal-El is the id (the infant self), Clark the ego (the social self) and Superman the super-ego (the moral self).

[Masterff]

You could also simply say:

Clark is the civilain personality who he shows in work-life, Superman the hero personality and Kal El is just himself, the person who he shows to his family,close friends etc. who know Superman and Clark...
For example when he is at home with lois and jonathan..

[Soubhagya]

If Superman is real, Clark Kent has to be fake. And if Clark Kent is real, Superman has to be fake. That's how one can say if Superman or Clark Kent is real. Isn't it?

I find both aspects to be real as well as fake. Just like i am somewhat different in the office then when i am at home. I have different kinds of relationships and activities in both places. Someone might say i am putting an act in the office. That's true to an extent. I am not going to wear pajamas in my office or have a heart to heart talk with my colleagues. But even then i am a genuine person there. I like my colleagues. And i like my work which supports my existence. At home i maybe more easy going but i may not be as open with my family as i might be with my friends. I might be more open with my friends, but they are not family. Everywhere i am acting but i am still genuine in all places.

That's how i see Superman. There is something fundamental to the guy. And that has toppings of different flavors depending on where he is. I prefer Clark Kent being the real guy as in Post Crisis. But even then he was lying to himself. How can he be just a guy from Kansas when no guys from Kansas can bench press mountains?

I find the other extreme boring. Clark Kent being an act feels cheap. Like that talk from Kill Bill. But that was a whole lot of BS. Look at Superman the movie. He might be acting as Clark Kent. But Clark Kent is still Superman. Its just that his insecurities and imperfections feel more pronounced. If that were the case Superman was the act, as he didn't show any weakness. Clark Kent feels more interesting then Superman in the movie.

Bill was acting as the new kid on the block. Someone who is very excited for superheroes after watching MCU and superhero films. To feel cool you find a cool sounding saying. Bruce Wayne is the mask, Batman is real. That sounds very cool. More catchy. But wrong. You can't make clear dualities in a real person.

To be fair these are imaginary characters moving like puppets in the hands of the writers. So, i guess whatever works for you.

[Jim Kelly]

I think the fact that Superman truly believes he's Superman and Clark truly believes he's Clark is how you can explain that he never lies to people about who he is. Not that this is something that bothers me--but some people raise quite a stink over Superman lying to people--and this is a way to answer that complaint.

[bat39]

Again to me it is semantics.

Kal-El is just a convenient label for him if you think that the person he truly is differs from either the Planet reporter or the world-saving hero. It's not about his relationship to Krypton.

It's like the Batman thing. If you call the socialite dilatant "Bruce Wayne" in order to differentiate it from the person who spent years training to avenge his parent's death, you aren't implying that the real person isn't interested in Bruce's relatives or business. You are just separating the public Bruce from the private Bruce. The problem is that it's hard to discuss both the public persona and the real person if you call both by the same name.

And if you are talking about the boy Jonathan and Martha raised, the public superhero plus the Metropolis reporter you can't call two of them by the same name. If "Clark" is the reporter, exaggerated tics and all. "Superman" is the aloof hero who never breaks a sweat when Luthor threatens the Planet staff. Then what do you call the person who hangs out at the Kent farm with Lois acting like neither of them? Kal-El is the closest description- who that guy would be 24/7 if he didn't have to fool the public in either ID.

I get what you mean.

But I think there is a difference, arguably, between the Kal-El identity and the "real Clark". Real Clark is still someone who has led a largely normal human life but also has to deal with the fact that he has powers and an alien heritage and is a superhero with a secret identity. Kal-El is the identity he was born with, a symbol of a life he could have had if Krypton hadn't exploded. Kal-El is the infant who came to earth, but Clark is the man he was raised to be.

I know its all largely symbolic, but where it can play a role is when it comes to how much each identity contributed to the creation of Superman and the Clark Kent reporter persona.

In Donner's movie for instance, you can argue that with his time spent in the Fortress of Solitude under Jor-El's tutelage, and the fact that the Superman suit and the concept of having a secret identity too comes from Jor-El, the real persona is Kal-El - the Kryptonian who adopts the identity of the heroic Superman at his Kryptonian father's instruction, and who uses the persona of Clark Kent to blend in with humanity. When he wants to live a normal life as Clark Kent with Lois, he has to give up being Superman and the 'Kal-El' side of him completely.

Contrast this with, say, the DCAU Superman. He think of himself as Clark Kent, the guy raised in Smallville. He respects his Kryptonian heritage and embraces the Kal-El name, but he thinks of himself as Clark first and foremost. In one episode, when Clark Kent is 'killed', he's tormented by the fact that he's lost his own identity.

This is broadly how I think the 'real persona' thing goes across comic-book eras and adaptations-


Golden Age: Real Clark

Silver Age/Bronze Age: Kal-El

Donnerverse: Kal-El

Modern Age: Real Clark (and eventually a bit of Kal-El)

DCAU: Real Clark (and eventually a bit of Kal-El)

New 52: Real Clark

DCEU: Real Clark (with a hint of Kal-El)

Rebirth: Real Clark (with probably a bit of Kal-El)