Either getting Pre Crisis or Post Crisis settled is the key to fixing Superman.

[bat39]

And here is a perfect illustration of why these Clark/Superman discussions give me a headache.

Bat39 uses "Clark Kent" as the name of the character prior to Action Comics #1. I understand why he does that. It was the only name the character answered to at that point in his life.

I use "Clark Kent" to describe the person he presents to the world in the stories that follow Action Comics #1. At this point no one else is in on the secret so there is no version of the character who interacts with people on panel who know the full person. They either know Superman or Clark (excepting Lois who knows both but as separate people).

So how can we discuss which is the real person, if when I say "Clark Kent" some people understand that as the kid John and Mary raised and others understand that as the reporter at the Star/Planet? We might agree that the young boy in 1920s Smallville is different from the guy who lets a mobster cut in on his date with Lois, but wind up calling the former version by different names.

There is no commonly recognized name for the 7-year old Pre-Crisis Earth-1 lad or the Pre-Action #1 Golden-Age/Earth-2 character. That is what we are all trying to come up with. If he is "Clark Kent" then what do we call the reporter hanging out with Lois and Jimmy? If we call him "Superman/boy" how do we distinguish between him before and after he goes public?

In a lot of cases I think we are all in agreement about who the real persona is, we just keep disagreeing because one group uses one name for that persona and the other group uses the other name.

I think you've hit the nail right on the head with this post!

I suppose this is where the concept of the 'Real Clark' comes in. Or, another way of putting it is the distinction between 'Smallville Clark' and 'Metropolis Clark'.

The part in your post that I've highlighted in bold though...well, I suppose that question can be answered differently in different eras.

If you consider the original Golden Age version, we actually don't know much about his formative years. Based on what we know though, I'd argue that he's the 'Real Clark'. He grew up thinking of himself as Clark Kent, and no one and nothing else. He didn't even know about the rocket! His parents taught him to use his powers to help people. After their deaths, he decided to use his powers to become the costumed hero known as Superman. And he disguises himself with a pair of glasses and poses as the mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent for his civilian identity. As Clark, he's forced to act like a weakling, but as Superman, he can be his 'true self'. But fundamentally, he thinks of himself as Clark Kent because that's all he's known...until, years later, he learns about his Kryptonian heritage.

But with the Silver Age/Bronze Age version, it gets complicated. This version apparently knew right from when he was a young child that he's Kal-El from the planet Krypton, and he identifies himself as such. But he's also raised with the identity of 'Clark Kent', that he knows isn't the name he was born with. And he reveals himself to the world as Superboy as a pre-teen, being able to freely use his powers, while hiding his identity and blending in with the other kids as the bespectacled Clark Kent. So does this mean that 'Clark Kent' is a construct from Day 1, given that Kal-El always knew who he really is and that his life as 'Clark' was an illusion?

Byrne took us back to the Golden Age by having him grow up believing himself to be Clark Kent. Here the twist was that, glasses notwithstanding, he pretty much acts as his 'true self' when he's acting as a reporter in Metropolis i.e. there is just one Clark Kent who's the 'Real Clark'. Superman is the illusion - the false identity constructed so that Clark can use his powers freely in public. He later learns that he is Kal-El from Krypton, but isn't really enthusiastic about adopting that identity, continuing to consider himself Clark Kent first and foremost.

I think most versions ultimately give us a 'Real Clark' that he grows up as. The differences crop up mainly with two factors - 1. How much of an act does he put on when it comes to playing 'Reporter Clark'? And 2. How much does the knowledge of his Kryptonian heritage and identity as Kal-El affect how he thinks of himself?

The Silver Age/Bronze Age though is an outlier since it suggests that Clark Kent was a construct from Day 1 since he always knew he's Kal-El!

[Jon Clark]

I think you've hit the nail right on the head with this post!

I suppose this is where the concept of the 'Real Clark' comes in. Or, another way of putting it is the distinction between 'Smallville Clark' and 'Metropolis Clark'.

The part in your post that I've highlighted in bold though...well, I suppose that question can be answered differently in different eras.

Right. That is why it is part of the Pre-Crisis/Post-Crisis discussion. People have preferences for one answer over the other.

If you consider the original Golden Age version, we actually don't know much about his formative years. Based on what we know though, I'd argue that he's the 'Real Clark'. He grew up thinking of himself as Clark Kent, and no one and nothing else. He didn't even know about the rocket! His parents taught him to use his powers to help people. After their deaths, he decided to use his powers to become the costumed hero known as Superman. And he disguises himself with a pair of glasses and poses as the mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent for his civilian identity. As Clark, he's forced to act like a weakling, but as Superman, he can be his 'true self'. But fundamentally, he thinks of himself as Clark Kent because that's all he's known...until, years later, he learns about his Kryptonian heritage.

That's more semantics than anything else to me. He can think of himself as "Superman", "Clark Kent" or "Kal-L" and it makes no difference to who he thinks is the real person. The label "Clark Kent" is being used in a wider context in your argument than a lot of us read it.

If you are familiar with Star Trek: The Next Generation there was an episode where Commander Riker discovered that a transporter accident years before had created two of him. One version materialized on his home ship and went on to the life we knew about. The other copy was left behind on the planet he was beaming up from. Both of them identified as "William T Riker", but if we were talking about the series outside of that episode that name only applies to ONE character. You can argue the other character still thinks of himself as "William T Riker" but in the case of the series he is now "Thomas Riker", a distinct and separate person from "Will Riker".

To me the person who is both the hero Superman and the Daily Planet reporter is a distinct character separate from Clark Kent the same way Tom Riker is distinct from Will even if he has no other name given to him. He can call himself Clark in his thoughts but that is different from identifying himself primarily as a reporter.

But with the Silver Age/Bronze Age version, it gets complicated. This version apparently knew right from when he was a young child that he's Kal-El from the planet Krypton, and he identifies himself as such. But he's also raised with the identity of 'Clark Kent', that he knows isn't the name he was born with. And he reveals himself to the world as Superboy as a pre-teen, being able to freely use his powers, while hiding his identity and blending in with the other kids as the bespectacled Clark Kent. So does this mean that 'Clark Kent' is a construct from Day 1, given that Kal-El always knew who he really is and that his life as 'Clark' was an illusion?

To me adding Kal-El into the mix just further muddies the water.

The real person isn't a Kryptonian. He grew up on Earth and spent 90% or more of his life being shaped by that. Now that person might still use Kal-El to identify himself but using that name lends itself to a misconception. He doesn't view his experiences as Clark Kent in Smallville like an actor playing the role of Clark would. He doesn't think of Kryptonopolis as his "home" or view Jonathan and Martha as less of parents to him than Jor-El and Lara. He isn't J'onn J'onzz posing as a human being. He is a human being just one whose heritage is from both Krypton and Earth.

Byrne took us back to the Golden Age by having him grow up believing himself to be Clark Kent. Here the twist was that, glasses notwithstanding, he pretty much acts as his 'true self' when he's acting as a reporter in Metropolis i.e. there is just one Clark Kent who's the 'Real Clark'. Superman is the illusion - the false identity constructed so that Clark can use his powers freely in public. He later learns that he is Kal-El from Krypton, but isn't really enthusiastic about adopting that identity, continuing to consider himself Clark Kent first and foremost.

This is pretty close to my view, except I place less emphasis on the Kryptonian part.

I think most versions ultimately give us a 'Real Clark' that he grows up as. The differences crop up mainly with two factors - 1. How much of an act does he put on when it comes to playing 'Reporter Clark'? And 2. How much does the knowledge of his Kryptonian heritage and identity as Kal-El affect how he thinks of himself?

The Silver Age/Bronze Age though is an outlier since it suggests that Clark Kent was a construct from Day 1 since he always knew he's Kal-El!

To me the Byrne era (and to a lesser extent the following period upto Flashpoint) was the outlier. From Action Comics #1 through Crisis, "Superman" was the person who got out of bed each morning. He was the person whose thought balloons we read. He with or without powers was the person we saw when he wasn't trying to hide his nature. After Byrne the concept flipped and Superman became largely the same guy making Clark as much the real person as Superman (and more real under some writers).

[Ascended]

Of course, none of us were delivered via spaceship from a distant star (we came from storks, after all...), so who's to say what's the most natural response to Clark Kent's circumstances.

Speak for yourself. I was delivered by a drunk headless bat with flaming wings who flew straight out of hel.

[DochaDocha]

Speak for yourself. I was delivered by a drunk headless bat with flaming wings who flew straight out of hel.

I can only picture the Spider-man/Batman boss from Shinobi right now...

[bat39]

That's more semantics than anything else to me. He can think of himself as "Superman", "Clark Kent" or "Kal-L" and it makes no difference to who he thinks is the real person. The label "Clark Kent" is being used in a wider context in your argument than a lot of us read it.

If you are familiar with Star Trek: The Next Generation there was an episode where Commander Riker discovered that a transporter accident years before had created two of him. One version materialized on his home ship and went on to the life we knew about. The other copy was left behind on the planet he was beaming up from. Both of them identified as "William T Riker", but if we were talking about the series outside of that episode that name only applies to ONE character. You can argue the other character still thinks of himself as "William T Riker" but in the case of the series he is now "Thomas Riker", a distinct and separate person from "Will Riker".

To me the person who is both the hero Superman and the Daily Planet reporter is a distinct character separate from Clark Kent the same way Tom Riker is distinct from Will even if he has no other name given to him. He can call himself Clark in his thoughts but that is different from identifying himself primarily as a reporter.

Agreed. It is a question of semantics to a large extent exactly what name he ascribes to himself. Though, speaking strictly as far as the Golden Age is concerned, I can't see him self-identifying as anything other than 'Clark Kent'. I have a hard time believing that any incarnation of Superman literally thinks of himself as being 'Superman' first and foremost, and for most of the Golden Age he was unaware of the name Kal-El.

To me adding Kal-El into the mix just further muddies the water.

The real person isn't a Kryptonian. He grew up on Earth and spent 90% or more of his life being shaped by that. Now that person might still use Kal-El to identify himself but using that name lends itself to a misconception. He doesn't view his experiences as Clark Kent in Smallville like an actor playing the role of Clark would. He doesn't think of Kryptonopolis as his "home" or view Jonathan and Martha as less of parents to him than Jor-El and Lara. He isn't J'onn J'onzz posing as a human being. He is a human being just one whose heritage is from both Krypton and Earth.

Agree with you completely.

But Kal-El is in my view a major part of these debates about Superman's identity. People who tend towards the idea that 'Superman' is more real than 'Clark Kent' justify it by arguing that Kal-El is the real person and Clark is just him putting on an act as a human - with Superman just being the name by which Kal-El is known by the public on earth.

And the Silver Age/Bronze Age does support that interpretation to a large extent by having him be aware of his identity as Kal-El while growing up. The Superboy career also leads to the 'public' Clark Kent becoming a secret identity and an 'act' a lot earlier in life.

Then there's Superman II, which also goes along with a version of the idea. When Superman wants to be with Lois, he has to renounce his Kryptonian heritage and powers, and identity as Superman, and just be Clark Kent. And this is presented as being the wrong decision in the context of the movie. Superman's whole mission in the Donner movies is based on instructions he receives from holographic Jor-El...right down to the suit. He basically walks into the Fortress as Clark Kent, and over 12 years is indoctrinated to become Kal-El/Superman, with Clark Kent then becoming a mere facade/secret identity.

To me the Byrne era (and to a lesser extent the following period upto Flashpoint) was the outlier. From Action Comics #1 through Crisis, "Superman" was the person who got out of bed each morning. He was the person whose thought balloons we read. He with or without powers was the person we saw when he wasn't trying to hide his nature. After Byrne the concept flipped and Superman became largely the same guy making Clark as much the real person as Superman (and more real under some writers).

Basically, with Byrne, the only thing that really changed from, say, the Golden Age, was that Clark didn't put on too much of an act beyond the glasses. If, in Action Comics #1, Clark didn't act like too much of a wimp when he was wearing glasses, there wouldn't really be too much of a difference from the Byrne set-up. Being free to be his 'true self' as Clark Kent may have led him to consider 'Superman' to be more of an illusion, whereas in the Golden Age he had to pretend to be a weakling as Clark so he could only be his 'true self' as Superman.

The big change that Byrne did bring was a change from the Silver Age - the attitude towards his Kryptonian heritage. Silver Age Clark grew up considering himself to be Kal-El, whereas Byrne Clark was indifferent to it when he learned the truth. Over the ensuing decades, writers have tried to find a balance between these extremes and I think by and large a mid-ground somewhere is a healthy place for the character to be.

[Jon Clark]

Agreed. It is a question of semantics to a large extent exactly what name he ascribes to himself. Though, speaking strictly as far as the Golden Age is concerned, I can't see him self-identifying as anything other than 'Clark Kent'. I have a hard time believing that any incarnation of Superman literally thinks of himself as being 'Superman' first and foremost, and for most of the Golden Age he was unaware of the name Kal-El.

My point is that "Clark Kent" is not the same as Clark Kent. Most of the discussions on this boil down to how real the reporter we see on panel is. That is "Clark Kent". And to me the reporter in the Golden Age sort of waffled on how real he was, ehile Superman rarely if ever seemed less real. Clark seemed at points to act boldly when he either forgot himself or circumstances needed him to act without time to change clothes. But at other points Clark took abuse that he'd never have allowed as Superman.

To me that makes it impossible to consider Clark the real identity, even if that was the name he thought of as his real name. The traits associated with Clark were not the traits he really identified with. In fact the biggest whole in the secret ID was that Superman actually befriended Lois (and later Jimmy) publically as Superman. If Clark was meant to protect his friends from reprisals by hiding his ID, then having them as friends defeats that purpose. I could see Clark as having a better argument for being the "real" person if he had relationships that Superman could not (and did not) have.

I just read a Golden Age story where Clark is apparently killed and Superman is forced to face creating a new secret identity. It was the Golden Age and they had to fit a whole story in a few pages, but there was almost no thought given to Superman actually missing being Clark. It was as if Clark Kent was just like Matches Malone is to Batman, a useful tool but if necessary one he could drop and never look back.

[Kuwagaton]

Isn't what so weird? Early and later Clark is firmly registered with readers as a wimp, but like you say his character sort of went where convenient. Some occasions he was a lot like the firmer guy Stern wrote, where he would actually assert himself over thugs.

I don't see the way Bendis is handling the character the same as the way you characterize it. My suggestion is to stop trying to "fix" anything. We have had nothing but a constant stream of reboots, retcons, tweaks, crisis, replacement characters and improvements since 2001. There have been some great stories along the way.....but is the status quo of the character any better or worse for all the effort?

I think the elephant in the room is that people generally don't care much for all that stuff they to to work back in anyway. There's a difference in the way the Lee Kirby stuff from Marvel is treated compared to classic Superman. The gymnastics are sort of pointless... like they reinstall Superboy. What does that mean, what did Superboy do and how does that affect Superman? Eh, maybe nothing and probably doesn't.

But that's not to put the blame on Johns. I'll check out the story you mention more earnestly when I have the chance.

It's less about the exact age than the fact of whether Clark has a before and an after view of the powers. Clark showing a burst of super-strength a few times before kindergarten and Clark being able to lift dairy cows on a whim is the difference more than whether he is 4 or 14 at the time. Pre-Crisis Superbaby didn't have super-powers (from his perspective) he just had things he could do. Post-Crisis Clark had a period of his life when he was no more extraordinary than Pete Ross or Lana Lang. Whether that ended when he was 5, 12, or 15 it still makes his understanding of his abilities closer to "I used to be like everyone else and now I'm not".

Ironically the "emergence" perspective you mention is so far its most potent in the Infinite Crisis reboot, including One Year Later, where Johns decided to run a retro canon. It was really my favorite part of SO where he freaked out and everything, but it's not really like what Byrne did. that Clark played football even though he didn't know how to avoid breaking bones with his softest taps, and apparently never had the trauma SO Clark did. The idea of being different didn't separate him, it wasn't an aspect he had to learn to accept.

I do think you can do a good job of making his powers and heritage burdens, but I also think that since versions prior to IC had it in common that they weren't really, it's like something borrowed to complete that Spider-Man parallel in a way it didn't hold up before imo.

Or to put it another way- Superman and Clark both observe the same morality. Superman isn't projecting a more wholesome style than Clark for public consumption. To the extent Superman is practicing any self-restraint it's the same level he practices it as Clark. There is no action Clark will let himself perform as Clark that he won't let himself perform as Superman- the reverse isn't true.

Live a normal life with Lois was a recurring thing in the events of losing or not needing his powers. There goes that tricky definition of "Clark" but I have trouble seeing that as a "Superman" thing. Their relationship was so often not the same without Clark.

Yes, I think this is a fundamental point which gets missed a lot in these discussions.

The way I see it, Superman is definitely different from J'onn J'onzz or the Thanagarian Hawks, in that he isn't really a 'strange visitor to earth'. He's someone who has been raised from infancy on earth, and grew up with a human name and human parents. Even his mission as a superhero is to fight for justice within the context of a human society.

I love the alien heroes. Kara, J'onn, Shayera, Dox II. They're all later stage visitors... and I don't even like favorites like Katar when turned into earthmen, because they have identities. Kal is different, still a Kryptonian and technically has a facade in the pre crisis phase as you say, but he's the most effective earth hero because he knows it as well as anyone.

I think DC deliberately divided its fanbase around 1986, although why they would do that I don't know. They might have been trying to win new readers from Marvel, but they did it in such a way that it hurt a lot of their faithful followers. And it was a crucial moment in comics collecting history.

At the time, there were all these collectors who were into getting complete runs of a comic and following their favourite characters. They had jobs now--they weren't little kids anymore--and they could afford to hunt down back issues and put together impressive collections. Yet DC was saying nothing that happened with Superman before 1986 mattered--it was all on the garbage heap of history.

And DC acted like those fans didn't matter--the fans that loved DC didn't matter.

The goal was always explained as bringing in new fans during a period of humble sales. Isn't it hard to think if a reason they would deliberately lose some in the process? Sounds like a wash.

[objectivewatcher2013]

I think you've hit the nail right on the head with this post!

I suppose this is where the concept of the 'Real Clark' comes in. Or, another way of putting it is the distinction between 'Smallville Clark' and 'Metropolis Clark'.

The part in your post that I've highlighted in bold though...well, I suppose that question can be answered differently in different eras.

If you consider the original Golden Age version, we actually don't know much about his formative years. Based on what we know though, I'd argue that he's the 'Real Clark'. He grew up thinking of himself as Clark Kent, and no one and nothing else. He didn't even know about the rocket! His parents taught him to use his powers to help people. After their deaths, he decided to use his powers to become the costumed hero known as Superman. And he disguises himself with a pair of glasses and poses as the mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent for his civilian identity. As Clark, he's forced to act like a weakling, but as Superman, he can be his 'true self'. But fundamentally, he thinks of himself as Clark Kent because that's all he's known...until, years later, he learns about his Kryptonian heritage.

But with the Silver Age/Bronze Age version, it gets complicated. This version apparently knew right from when he was a young child that he's Kal-El from the planet Krypton, and he identifies himself as such. But he's also raised with the identity of 'Clark Kent', that he knows isn't the name he was born with. And he reveals himself to the world as Superboy as a pre-teen, being able to freely use his powers, while hiding his identity and blending in with the other kids as the bespectacled Clark Kent. So does this mean that 'Clark Kent' is a construct from Day 1, given that Kal-El always knew who he really is and that his life as 'Clark' was an illusion?

Byrne took us back to the Golden Age by having him grow up believing himself to be Clark Kent. Here the twist was that, glasses notwithstanding, he pretty much acts as his 'true self' when he's acting as a reporter in Metropolis i.e. there is just one Clark Kent who's the 'Real Clark'. Superman is the illusion - the false identity constructed so that Clark can use his powers freely in public. He later learns that he is Kal-El from Krypton, but isn't really enthusiastic about adopting that identity, continuing to consider himself Clark Kent first and foremost.

I think most versions ultimately give us a 'Real Clark' that he grows up as. The differences crop up mainly with two factors - 1. How much of an act does he put on when it comes to playing 'Reporter Clark'? And 2. How much does the knowledge of his Kryptonian heritage and identity as Kal-El affect how he thinks of himself?

The Silver Age/Bronze Age though is an outlier since it suggests that Clark Kent was a construct from Day 1 since he always knew he's Kal-El!

No, believe it or not, there is a difference. Pre Crisis Superman is Superman first, Clark is just a disguise so he can be among people. He could care less about being a reporter. He's pretending to be human, but he's alien. And everything he does is alien. Like he's a god among humans. He can move planets. Fight Zeus. Time travel. Spin the earth on its axis backwards, you name it. Post Crisis Superman is all Clark. 100% farmboy with farmboy values. He doesn't have to pretend to be Clark Kent because he is Clark Kent. He's just as human as the rest of us, he just happens to have extraordinary abilities. Now, which of these two different Supermen do people want. Until that's decided, you have no Superman, just a divided fanbase.

[objectivewatcher2013]

No, believe it or not, there is a difference. Pre Crisis Superman is Superman first, Clark is just a disguise so he can be among people. He could care less about being a reporter. He's pretending to be human, but he's alien. And everything he does is alien. Like he's a god among humans. He can move planets. Fight Zeus. Time travel. Spin the earth on its axis backwards, you name it. Post Crisis Superman is all Clark. 100% farmboy with farmboy values. He doesn't have to pretend to be Clark Kent because he is Clark Kent. He's just as human as the rest of us, he just happens to have extraordinary abilities. Now, which of these two different Supermen do people want. Until that's decided, you have no Superman, just a divided fanbase.

Btw, with Batman, it's just the opposite. Bruce Wayne died the night his parents were killed. He's been Batman since. Bruce Wayne is the disguise. That works for Batman, but in my honest opinion, doesn't work for Superman. Make him Clark, and bring the Kents back as well.

[Sacred Knight]

Even pre-Crisis era Superman though cared a little more about the Clark Kent side and his day job more than you let on though. That he couldn't care less about anything about that side is an exaggeration. He wanted and needed that side pre-Crisis too, even if he did identify more as Superman back then.

Either way, my personal ideal is more of a balance. But it empirically works the pre-Crisis way just as well as it worked the post-Crisis way.

[Jim Kelly]

You don't need to have a Crisis and a major change to Superman's origin story just to get more of a focus on Clark. Like I said before, it depends on the writer. There were plenty of stories that put more focus on Clark and lots of stories that showed Clark was just as important as Superman.

I'm not sure that modern comics have given Clark the attention he deserves. If the stories are mostly about Superman in action against his villains, that doesn't leave a lot of pages for the private life of Clark Kent.

[bat39]

No, believe it or not, there is a difference. Pre Crisis Superman is Superman first, Clark is just a disguise so he can be among people. He could care less about being a reporter. He's pretending to be human, but he's alien. And everything he does is alien. Like he's a god among humans. He can move planets. Fight Zeus. Time travel. Spin the earth on its axis backwards, you name it. Post Crisis Superman is all Clark. 100% farmboy with farmboy values. He doesn't have to pretend to be Clark Kent because he is Clark Kent. He's just as human as the rest of us, he just happens to have extraordinary abilities. Now, which of these two different Supermen do people want. Until that's decided, you have no Superman, just a divided fanbase.

While these two extremes have been present at times, the notion that its only ever been these too extremes simply isn't true - particularly for the better part of the last thirty years.

For most of the Golden Age, Clark wasn't even aware that he was an alien. He's pretending to be human, but he's alien. And everything he does is alien. Like he's a god among humans. - that's certainly never a description that would apply to the original character as conceived by Siegal and Shuster, who actually used the alien origin as little more than a plot device to explain Superman's powers. Its only as the Silver Age began and Krypton became important to the Superman mythos that the notion of Superman considering himself an alien started to seep in - which taken to its extreme led to the interpretation you've described.

Also, a lot of the modern retellings of the origin have tried to strike a balance. In fact, Miller's Year One presents an interesting take on the Silver Age Superman's origins. Clark is aware of Krypton and his identity as Kal-El as a child because of his super-memory. He's aware of his alien nature since infancy. But he's still rooted to his identity as Clark Kent and his life in Smallville. By no stretch would you consider 'Clark Kent' in that story to be a false identity.

Btw, with Batman, it's just the opposite. Bruce Wayne died the night his parents were killed. He's been Batman since. Bruce Wayne is the disguise. That works for Batman, but in my honest opinion, doesn't work for Superman. Make him Clark, and bring the Kents back as well.

I think the needle has moved on that interpretation of Batman's identity. There was a time when 'Bruce Wayne' was considered the mask but that time has passed.

[objectivewatcher2013]

While these two extremes have been present at times, the notion that its only ever been these too extremes simply isn't true - particularly for the better part of the last thirty years.

For most of the Golden Age, Clark wasn't even aware that he was an alien. He's pretending to be human, but he's alien. And everything he does is alien. Like he's a god among humans. - that's certainly never a description that would apply to the original character as conceived by Siegal and Shuster, who actually used the alien origin as little more than a plot device to explain Superman's powers. Its only as the Silver Age began and Krypton became important to the Superman mythos that the notion of Superman considering himself an alien started to seep in - which taken to its extreme led to the interpretation you've described.

Also, a lot of the modern retellings of the origin have tried to strike a balance. In fact, Miller's Year One presents an interesting take on the Silver Age Superman's origins. Clark is aware of Krypton and his identity as Kal-El as a child because of his super-memory. He's aware of his alien nature since infancy. But he's still rooted to his identity as Clark Kent and his life in Smallville. By no stretch would you consider 'Clark Kent' in that story to be a false identity.



I think the needle has moved on that interpretation of Batman's identity. There was a time when 'Bruce Wayne' was considered the mask but that time has passed.

Not from what I'm seeing. He's still 100% Batman. Hey, a poster came up with a great idea. Why not bring back Kal -L? Put all the old values on him. He can wear the trunks. All the stuff the old nostalgics want, but get Superman out of the trunks and stop trying to make him be what he isn't.

[objectivewatcher2013]

250px-IC01Last.jpg


This is the solution right here. He could be the Jay Garrick of Supermen. Older, wiser, wear the trunks, all the old stuff. Think about this way, do see the Flash running around with a tambourine on his head lol? No, Jay Garrick wears it. And it works for him. So let Kal L have all the old nostalgia stuff, and move forward with Superman, because what's going on right now isn't working.

[Sacred Knight]

Kal-L right now would be superfluous. Current Superman IS the older, veteran Superman with a family now. If anything if we got a secondary Superman it should be a young one.