Who really is Clark Kent/Superman?

[Ascended]

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

Golden Age: Real Clark

I actually find the Golden Age kinda fascinating because I don't really think there's a split at all. Clark = Superman. And I dont think we've ever really seen that kind of fusion since. I mean, Clark works at the Planet to serve Superman's mission, and his personality is all Superman, but that's who he grew up as and was raised to be. Many of the personality traits we now assign to Clark, such as being shy or socially awkward, just weren't there at all except as a thin disguise Clark often forgot to maintain. I think, in a way, the Golden Age's answer to "Who is Superman?" is "Both." The writing back then just wasnt advanced enough to handle the kind of psychological split we see these days.

Silver Age/Bronze Age: Kal-El

Donnerverse: Kal-El

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

How are we defining the modern Age? I definitely agree post-Crisis began with "Clark is who I am" but I think they were shifting towards "he's a mix of both" by 2000 and trying for a more even split. What I find interesting is how poorly that actually worked. A lot of effort was put into re-inserting the pre-Crisis elements but no matter how hard DC tried, it just never worked for that version.

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

New 52: Real Clark

Really? I myself think the New52 was very much "SUPERman" over "superMAN" in most regards. There was definitely the "he's a bit of both" happening, as modern writers like to do, but I always got the feeling that Nuperman was very much Superman more than Clark. I mean, its semantics, as has been said, and obviously the "Clark" side of his life was very important to him, but I always thought that Clark was far more of a disguise (or perhaps I should say who he was forced to be in order to fit into society) than in post-Crisis, and that mixture felt far more organic and natural than the post-2000 efforts of pre-Flashpoint.

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

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

I think Bendis is writing a more even split than Tomasi did, but largely I agree here.

[Kuwagaton]

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?

You do a good job of explaining how that second idea is just a misnomer. If Clark is real, it usually follows suit that Superman is real because their interactions are the same guy in different circumstances. When his neighbor has a domestic absue situation and Superman shows up, it's still the way Clark would behave, but because they think he's different the response changes. Officer Steve can be the same guy who gives you a rolling stop ticket and a cosplayer at the same time, and you just don't know because it's a separate context

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.

That's a good way to figure it.

As far as lying goes, in some way it just has to be true unless he has a psychological condition, but I never thought he was so bad. He takes just enough and never stops giving.

I actually find the Golden Age kinda fascinating because I don't really think there's a split at all. Clark = Superman. And I dont think we've ever really seen that kind of fusion since. I mean, Clark works at the Planet to serve Superman's mission, and his personality is all Superman, but that's who he grew up as and was raised to be. Many of the personality traits we now assign to Clark, such as being shy or socially awkward, just weren't there at all except as a thin disguise Clark often forgot to maintain. I think, in a way, the Golden Age's answer to "Who is Superman?" is "Both." The writing back then just wasnt advanced enough to handle the kind of psychological split we see these days.

That's how I'd describe the post crisis take, which was inspired by the Adventures of Superman tv show. Golden age Superman, right from the start, takes Lois on a date and lets a gangster harass her. I mean we can see it's a harmless cover as he'll jump in as Superman if things go too far, but if things don't go that far? It's enough of a cover to be considered a legit identity, but he's still making a deliberate contrast in what he would actually do in a socially critical situation.

Lois was pretty great then aside from all the goofy pickles where she needed to be rescued, because she had zero time for the guy and it makes sense in hilarious ways. He was really kind of lousy to her despite ultimately being having been a great guy in either identity.

Really? I myself think the New52 was very much "SUPERman" over "superMAN" in most regards. There was definitely the "he's a bit of both" happening, as modern writers like to do, but I always got the feeling that Nuperman was very much Superman more than Clark. I mean, its semantics, as has been said, and obviously the "Clark" side of his life was very important to him, but I always thought that Clark was far more of a disguise (or perhaps I should say who he was forced to be in order to fit into society) than in post-Crisis, and that mixture felt far more organic and natural than the post-2000 efforts of pre-Flashpoint.

I'd agree except Pak, Snyder, and some later writers really doubled down in him considering himself Clark.

[bat39]

I actually find the Golden Age kinda fascinating because I don't really think there's a split at all. Clark = Superman. And I dont think we've ever really seen that kind of fusion since. I mean, Clark works at the Planet to serve Superman's mission, and his personality is all Superman, but that's who he grew up as and was raised to be. Many of the personality traits we now assign to Clark, such as being shy or socially awkward, just weren't there at all except as a thin disguise Clark often forgot to maintain. I think, in a way, the Golden Age's answer to "Who is Superman?" is "Both." The writing back then just wasnt advanced enough to handle the kind of psychological split we see these days.

Well said.

'Clark Kent', the mild-mannered reporter is, to a large extent, a complete disguise. But its a disguise adopted by the 'real' Clark Kent who is...exactly the same person he is as Superman. It is Clark Kent who decided to use his powers to become a 'champion of the oppressed'. It is Clark Kent who makes a decision to create the identity of 'Superman' and act as a vigilante to help people. And it is Clark Kent who wears glasses and pretends to be a mild-mannered reporter in order to deflect attention from his vigilantism, and also have instant access to reports about crimes and disasters.

I suppose the fact that the concept of a secret identity was still relatively new at the time does explain why there isn't really an identity split. But the Golden Age Superman in general was a far simpler character. He's a guy with superpowers who wants to help people, so he wears a costume and uses his powers publicaly as Superman and wears glasses and works as a reporter as Clark Kent. His alien heritage and whether or not he considers himself human simply weren't factors back then.

How are we defining the modern Age? I definitely agree post-Crisis began with "Clark is who I am" but I think they were shifting towards "he's a mix of both" by 2000 and trying for a more even split. What I find interesting is how poorly that actually worked. A lot of effort was put into re-inserting the pre-Crisis elements but no matter how hard DC tried, it just never worked for that version.

I'm broadly using it to define the entire period up till the New 52. I think this version of Superman has always fundamentally been Clark Kent first and foremost. But later in life, and in his career, as he learns more about Krypton and its culture, as he meets other Kryptonians (most notably Kara), and as his history is rewritten to make Krypton a more optimistic and aspirational planet than the cold, sterile world from MOS, he begins to embrace the Kal-El identity a bit more. But at his core, he'll always be the guy who was raised in Smallville and who then set out into the world to make a difference. And the DCAU, and the Snyder/Cavill take on Superman, both mirror this version.

Really? I myself think the New52 was very much "SUPERman" over "superMAN" in most regards. There was definitely the "he's a bit of both" happening, as modern writers like to do, but I always got the feeling that Nuperman was very much Superman more than Clark. I mean, its semantics, as has been said, and obviously the "Clark" side of his life was very important to him, but I always thought that Clark was far more of a disguise (or perhaps I should say who he was forced to be in order to fit into society) than in post-Crisis, and that mixture felt far more organic and natural than the post-2000 efforts of pre-Flashpoint.

So again, as I have for my entire list, I looked at it in terms of what were the factors that most influenced his life and his decision to become Superman. He became Superman before he really learned about his Kryptonian heritage. And because of his youth, I don't think he reached a point where he came to embrace his Kryptonian heritage the way Post-COIE Superman eventually did. But yes, the lack of his foster parents or relationship with Lois Lane, probably did alienate him a bit from humanity. I can see Nuperman potentially leaning more towards becoming Kal-El over time. But not at the point of time we saw him.

Nuperman, at least as Morrison wrote him, was also influenced heavily by the Golden Age Superman, so in that regard, I feel a similar identity dynamic was at play.

[DrNewGod]

I actually find the Golden Age kinda fascinating because I don't really think there's a split at all. Clark = Superman. And I dont think we've ever really seen that kind of fusion since. I mean, Clark works at the Planet to serve Superman's mission, and his personality is all Superman, but that's who he grew up as and was raised to be. Many of the personality traits we now assign to Clark, such as being shy or socially awkward, just weren't there at all except as a thin disguise Clark often forgot to maintain. I think, in a way, the Golden Age's answer to "Who is Superman?" is "Both." The writing back then just wasnt advanced enough to handle the kind of psychological split we see these days.

I'm with Ascended on this. We tend to forget that when Action Comics #1 hit the stands, there were no superhero conventions to observe. Superman entered the world as a mishmash of pulp and sci-fi tropes; in several early appearances, he actually eschewed his costume for more ordinary disguises. The original "Clark Act" mainly tended to show up around Lois Lane, as if he were altering his suit-and-tie behaviors for the benefit of those who might be close enough to identify him. With most others, Clark tended to display a persona much more in keeping with The Man Of Tomorrow.

[Ascended]

That's how I'd describe the post crisis take, which was inspired by the Adventures of Superman tv show. Golden age Superman, right from the start, takes Lois on a date and lets a gangster harass her. I mean we can see it's a harmless cover as he'll jump in as Superman if things go too far, but if things don't go that far? It's enough of a cover to be considered a legit identity, but he's still making a deliberate contrast in what he would actually do in a socially critical situation.

I think the big difference with post-Crisis, and why it fails (for me) is in how Byrne went about the "merger." Although the Golden Age version was largely just a pulp-ish dispenser of two-fisted justice without any real personality divide, he was also a scientist who invented an indestructible material for his costume, and as time went on he quickly began to develop other "super" hobbies which I think of as being tied more to "Superman" than "Clark." He became something of a Renaissance Man, even if you only saw hints of it early on. The post-Crisis version basically just did "regular people" stuff, just really really well (like being the high school quarterback). It felt more like "Super At Normal Stuff Man" than a highly evolved person who was "Super" inside and out.

This is just me, of course. Not knocking any fans of the early post-Crisis version.

I'd agree except Pak, Snyder, and some later writers really doubled down in him considering himself Clark.

Snyder most definitely went all in with the "Clark first" mentality. Pak, I think, was still working with and honoring the Morrison foundation, but was writing a Clark who was a few years older and more mature and comfortable in his place and role. We get a lot from Pak about how "Pa taught me not to punch down" and whatnot, but even a Superman who is deeply in the "Kryptonian" side of himself is going to carry those Kent lessons with him. Pak still had Clark exercising skills and talents that I myself consider to be more a part of the "Superman" side than the "Clark" side of the character.

[Jim Kelly]

I was taken aback in the final scenes of MAN OF STEEL where suddenly Clark is wearing glasses and working as a reporter. Up to that point, the movie wasn't telling that story. It was essentially telling a Jack Knight kind of version of Superman where he's just this guy who doesn't try to create a double identity. Clark is some anomymous everyman character but he comes to be known as Superman. There was no need for him to establish another role--he's just the same guy all the time.

If they wanted to set up Clark Kent to wear glasses, work as a reporter and have a different persona in the movie--then they should have put that into the movie beforehand. Like have Jonathan and Martha prepping him for how to assume another identity, buying him glasses, helping him with English composition. It comes out of left field that he's suddenly this other version. The only reason it makes any sense is because we know that's what happens in the comic books and in some other movies and TV shows. But MAN OF STEEL seemed to be setting up an alternate take on the Superman story, where those conventions wouldn't apply.

[Flash Gordon]

He is Kal-El, refugee of a doomed world, raised on Earth by common folk. All of which influences his moral compass and outlook. He's a journalist, trying his best to find "truth" in hidden places. He also uses his extraordinary abilities to help his fellow living being, regardless of class, race, gender, species, etc.

There is not distinction of "Clark Kent" and "Superman". Those are just names that he goes by.

[Kuwagaton]

I think the big difference with post-Crisis, and why it fails (for me) is in how Byrne went about the "merger." Although the Golden Age version was largely just a pulp-ish dispenser of two-fisted justice without any real personality divide, he was also a scientist who invented an indestructible material for his costume, and as time went on he quickly began to develop other "super" hobbies which I think of as being tied more to "Superman" than "Clark." He became something of a Renaissance Man, even if you only saw hints of it early on. The post-Crisis version basically just did "regular people" stuff, just really really well (like being the high school quarterback). It felt more like "Super At Normal Stuff Man" than a highly evolved person who was "Super" inside and out.

This is just me, of course. Not knocking any fans of the early post-Crisis version.

When you say "without any personality divide" I think of not deliberately changing his nature for the sake of a disguise, which he often did. I think George Reeves calling it buffoonery is a little extreme because it wasn't a total act (the Donner based Perry we saw with Johns was like, "why did I even hire this guy?") but we were shown at points that without his powers, living as Clark, he'd be pretty different from his Clark disguise. Though I guess you can also say to a large extent that being Clark is being a rascal, with stuff like the 4th wall wink as having a row.

The renaissance man thing I also read differently, just in that general sense. That he can switch from politics to literature to sports to physics in conversation, an automotive savvy journalist who can fight fires as well as fight bullies. I think it's overlooked how often he would actually sidestep the physical conflict, compared to some later versions. When Superboy frets over who would win their fight, he casually admits that Superboy could kill him but that it has nothing to do with saving the day. But yeah, the expansion of all that came at the cost of losing some of the Doc Savage characteristics. It does change his character to take away super science and some of his more inexplicable, alien quirks.

I think it was a combination of two Byrneisms, where his takeaways from the source material are questions that he uses his own work to answer. The first is how Superman was such a great scientist out of nowhere, the second is whether or not super intelligence is actual intelligence or just a power. So he abandoned the inventions and made him just a really clever guy who does the other Doc Savage thing, use friends indebted to him to cover ground.

[stargazer01]

great read guys, thanks. The way I see it, he was raised as a human, but he always felt he was different. Yes, he is Clark Kent, son of Martha and Jonathan Kent, but he is also Kal-El, son of Krypton. When he discovers where he comes from and why his parents sent him to Earth, he realizes he has to honor them too. He's the son of two cultures, two worlds. He's a mix of all that, and when he shows up to the world as a superhero, they called him Superman.

Superman and Clark at work are a bit of an act, because he can't be with strangers of co-workers the same way he is at home with his loved one and close friends. In a way, we are also a bit like that at home, work and with our friends.