Do you believe in the "Clark is who I am" quote?

[The World]

I don't think I'm quite getting how the Golden Age supports the "Clark is who I am" angle. My personal point of contention with the quote is that while it sounds deep it's feels really shallow when you look into it. He seems to put a ton of weight into the fact that his name is Clark Kent to the detriment of much more significant parts of self identification imo.

When we look into the Golden Age we do indeed know that there wasn't yet a Kal-L and he was indeed named Clark when he came to this world. But that's about it and if that is all that really went into the character he'd be awfully thin. However as we see as the stories go forward we see that Clark Kent has next to no real characterization often shifting from story to story depending on what was advantageous to Superman. Superman by comparison has a much more set kind of characterization that's brave, adventurous, and no nonsense. We get to see inside his Clark Kent living space which is generic and nondescript, basically just some furniture and a radio. Meanwhile Superman has an entire Citadel errected for him where he walks around as Superman not as Clark Kent, where he works out, keeps memorabilia from his adventures, etc. He works his hardest, speaks most truthfully and seems most honest with people around him when he's Superman not Clark Kent. As far as I can tell Clark Kent works to help Superman not the other way around.

Long story short in the Golden Age his name might be Clark Kent but he's never more real than when he's Superman.

[Adekis]

I seriously, i didn't meant to be rude. I am just a stubborn person. So, it that side of me just comes many a time.

The problem with that i find is. Superman wouldn't want his Vigilantism be something associated with krypton. He wouldn't want his questionable side to be the legacy of Krypton. I always envisioned kryptons legacy to be the fortress and the legion itself. I also think it should be something he built by scientific research and archeology.Essentially, the tomorrow he built. Its also why i propose that the symbol of el family be not Clark's s, but the symbol worn by jor el. I would want superman's symbol to signify the conviction of strongman values. Hence, the champion of the oppressed and the stoicism . For true strength is defending the defenceless and being their friend, being helpful in their pursuit of strength, happiness and work together with them to get better yourself . If that symbol later becomes synonymous with hope. Then it's earned. A champion always earns his titles.

Hey, no worries, just like I said, a little awareness is all I was really asking, and it sounds like you got it, dude.

I don't think the Man of Tomorrow sees his super activities as "questionable" - and from your glowing (and highly accurate) description of his good deeds, it doesn't sound like you do either. Besides, his Super-Feats are what inspire the Legion, not his scientific research or his archaeological pursuits, though I'm also interested in the idea that he does those things. Still, his Super-Feats are by far his most important contribution to the world. I think he sees his works as a way of keeping Krypton's spirit alive, an act of goodwill to contrast with the universe's uncaring genocide.

There's also an element of his morality, the too-often underused Champion of the Oppressed idea, that comes from Krypton to begin with, even in the Golden Age when Clark couldn't know anything about his heritage except that he was from "somewhere else". Keep in mind, Siegel's first Superman, the human psychic Bill Dunn, was portrayed as a monster. Siegel was a bit of a cynic, and part of why he was comfortable saying "maybe this new Superman could be a moral paragon," is because that Superman, Kal-L / Clark Kent, isn't human - and as such, not prone to human moral failings.

So Superman's morals, his Champion of the Oppressed status, helping the helpless, no job too big, no job too small - that all does come, in some way, from Krypton, even if Superman doesn't know it.

It helps to remember, I think, that in the Golden Age, Krypton was a planet of strongmen, each man and woman able to race faster than a speeding bullet and leap tall buildings in a single bound! With that in mind, maybe your idea of his "strongman values" fits pretty well with the idea that Krypton is the source of his great morality in the end. I think the two ideas can fit together very well.

[manwhohaseverything]

Hey, no worries, just like I said, a little awareness is all I was really asking, and it sounds like you got it, dude.

I don't think the Man of Tomorrow sees his super activities as "questionable" - and from your glowing (and highly accurate) description of his good deeds, it doesn't sound like you do either. Besides, his Super-Feats are what inspire the Legion, not his scientific research or his archaeological pursuits, though I'm also interested in the idea that he does those things. Still, his Super-Feats are by far his most important contribution to the world. I think he sees his works as a way of keeping Krypton's spirit alive, an act of goodwill to contrast with the universe's uncaring genocide.

There's also an element of his morality, the too-often underused Champion of the Oppressed idea, that comes from Krypton to begin with, even in the Golden Age when Clark couldn't know anything about his heritage except that he was from "somewhere else". Keep in mind, Siegel's first Superman, the human psychic Bill Dunn, was portrayed as a monster. Siegel was a bit of a cynic, and part of why he was comfortable saying "maybe this new Superman could be a moral paragon," is because that Superman, Kal-L / Clark Kent, isn't human - and as such, not prone to human moral failings.

So Superman's morals, his Champion of the Oppressed status, helping the helpless, no job too big, no job too small - that all does come, in some way, from Krypton, even if Superman doesn't know it.

It helps to remember, I think, that in the Golden Age, Krypton was a planet of strongmen! So maybe your idea of the "strongman morality" fits pretty well with the idea that Krypton is the source of his great morality!

He still uses violence and he basically does things that can blow up in everyone's face(many times he does goof up) . He also used questionable tactics like fear, threatening.. Etc.He does break the law of the land,even if it is for good causes. Hence, the reluctance. He is also reckless. He wouldn't want people to think badly of Krypton in anyway .Superman might be rootin tootin son of a gun. But, he still feel the guilt of doing what he does, you know. All the more reasons for him to distance his vigilante career from krypton.

[Kuwagaton]

Long story short in the Golden Age his name might be Clark Kent but he's never more real than when he's Superman.

I don't know the full context of the tv show scene but it does seem to be the opposite of what the golden age would say. Ultimately, there's no real reason someone would think his PoV came from being Clark. By the mid 40s he was already baking pool sized pies and swinging prehistoric space dragons by the tail, so he became almost impossible to distinguish from the silver age version.

But the versions where Clark is legit come from the golden age wheelhouse. Golden age Superboy was a well liked and respected farm boy named Clark, instead of being a kid superhero acting in disguise. No time tossed team ups with Robin or the legion. George Reeves would play a bold and well rounded Clark to provide a likeable protagonist when it wasn't the Superman sequences. The "golden age sequel" of Earth Two streamlined his history into what the modern takes recognize: brought to Earth before his memories began, he came up as a regular kid who slowly developed powers (that crept as years went on, admittedly not with very much writer intention). When he became a grown man he moved to Metropolis and became Superman. Found out his origin as THE last son of Krypton during his Superman career. By his own admission he'd made an error in denying the "man" side of "Superman" and corrected that in part by marrying Lois

The differences we see from the Earth One model often come from Earth Two (redhead to bald Lex as a grown villain instead of childhood frenemy, atypical fortress designs and locations, honorary Justice membership; Action vol 2 had Susie Tompkins, George Taylor, and the vigilante beginning).

[Alan2099]

Whether it's Batman, Superman, or 'Mazing man, I hate the idea that one identity is "fake" and the other is real.

It's a very close minded way to look at characters and it limits them horribly. They may act a bit differently depending on what they';re wearing, but who doesn't act a bit different around their friends than they do at work.

Kal-El isn't pretending to Clark Kent (or Superman) he's just being Clark Kent (or Superman.)

(Now keep in mind there ARE some heroes that are most definitely different people in their costumed identity, but those should be special cases like Hulk/Banner and some incarnations of Dr. Fate.)

[Ascended]

I don't think I'm quite getting how the Golden Age supports the "Clark is who I am" angle.

I think people get hung up on exactly what the names mean.

In the Golden Age, the character thought of himself as "Clark Kent" because he didn't know his origin and had no other name to use until he was a full grown adult and the newspapers gave him the moniker of Superman. So if you want to look at it a certain way then yeah, OG Supes is "Clark" before "Superman."

But the original character, the personality and motivations and quirks and habits and traits, most of that was what we'd now broadly label as belonging to the "Superman" side of the equation. So we could say that, although the only name he knew was "Clark" he was still "Superman" first.

Before we can answer the question, we have to define what it means to be "Clark" or "Superman" and where we draw the divide.

In any case, I maintain that the answer to "Is he Clark or Superman?" is "yes." Both sides of the character are made up of things that are true, things that are false, and embellishments that take what is there and then add to them. At no time in his life was this character ever truly "one" person. Even as a kid, long before capes and Legion flight rings and monsters, there were huge chunks of his daily experience that he had to keep secret. He couldn't talk about the cancer he could see in old man Hubbard's lungs, or the fact that he could see colors no one else could. He always had secrets, he always had to compartmentalize his life into two boxes "regular person stuff" and "secret stuff only I know and/or can do."

So Clark and Superman grow up together, develop together. The character was never one or the other, he was always both.

I think it was Maggin who said that Superman is basically schizophrenic, except for him that kind of duality is perfectly normal and sane. We can't measure this character by normal standards.

[Vordan]

It’s a simplification, but the point they were trying to make is there is more to Superman than just being a beacon of “hope” or a smiling savior, or even a sci-fi action hero. He’s a person with dreams, and fears, and flaws that are all important to who he is, even though they don’t always come through in the Superman persona. That said, it’s a little too simple. He’s Clark Kent the farm boy from Kansas, Clark Kent the reporter, and Clark Kent the bumbling doofus. He’s Kal-El the Last Son of Krypton, Kal-El the scientist, and Kal-El the caretaker of the Fortress of Solitude. He’s Superman the protector of Metropolis, Superman the Justice League member, and Superman the icon. He’s got all these different roles his identities play that fulfill his needs, and they’re all “valid”. I’d say his “true” self is when he’s wearing civilian clothes but not wearing glasses, and he’s showing the spit curl when he’s with his family, that’s as close as he can get to all of his identity being showcased at one moment:

Thought Fabok nailed how I see Superman when he’s being his “true” self, a mix of Clark Kent, Superman, and Kal-El.

[Jon Clark]

Whether it's Batman, Superman, or 'Mazing man, I hate the idea that one identity is "fake" and the other is real.

It's a very close minded way to look at characters and it limits them horribly. They may act a bit differently depending on what they';re wearing, but who doesn't act a bit different around their friends than they do at work.

Kal-El isn't pretending to Clark Kent (or Superman) he's just being Clark Kent (or Superman.)

(Now keep in mind there ARE some heroes that are most definitely different people in their costumed identity, but those should be special cases like Hulk/Banner and some incarnations of Dr. Fate.)

Me acting differently at work might be watching my language or concentrating on work activities instead of pleasure.

Superman acting differently at work involves pretending to be far less able.

Not quite the same thing.

[bat39]

I don't know the full context of the tv show scene but it does seem to be the opposite of what the golden age would say. Ultimately, there's no real reason someone would think his PoV came from being Clark. By the mid 40s he was already baking pool sized pies and swinging prehistoric space dragons by the tail, so he became almost impossible to distinguish from the silver age version.

But the versions where Clark is legit come from the golden age wheelhouse. Golden age Superboy was a well liked and respected farm boy named Clark, instead of being a kid superhero acting in disguise. No time tossed team ups with Robin or the legion. George Reeves would play a bold and well rounded Clark to provide a likeable protagonist when it wasn't the Superman sequences. The "golden age sequel" of Earth Two streamlined his history into what the modern takes recognize: brought to Earth before his memories began, he came up as a regular kid who slowly developed powers (that crept as years went on, admittedly not with very much writer intention). When he became a grown man he moved to Metropolis and became Superman. Found out his origin as THE last son of Krypton during his Superman career. By his own admission he'd made an error in denying the "man" side of "Superman" and corrected that in part by marrying Lois

The differences we see from the Earth One model often come from Earth Two (redhead to bald Lex as a grown villain instead of childhood frenemy, atypical fortress designs and locations, honorary Justice membership; Action vol 2 had Susie Tompkins, George Taylor, and the vigilante beginning).

Good point.

I think the main difference between the Golden Age take and the more modern takes is that in the Golden Age, Clark posed as a weakling when he wore the glasses and as such could be his 'true' self only when he wore the suit and called himself Superman. The George Reeves TV show, and Post-Crisis, changed that to have Clark act more like his real self even when he wore the glasses, and not be a pushover. But fundamentally, the character still thought of himself as Clark Kent...because he didn't know about Kal-El yet, and also because that's the name he grew up with.

This is distinct from, say, the Silver Age, where he knew he was Kal-El from an early age, was Superboy since he was around 10, and 'Clark Kent' really was an act of sorts for most of his life. Or even the Donner movies, where he spends 12 years being indoctrinated by Jor-El's hologram and basically then becomes Kal-El of Krypton who functions as Superman (the suit, the whole superhero career etc. all is part of a Kryptonian mission) with 'Clark Kent' becoming little more than an act.

[mathew101281]

I don’t know how Clark could be the facade. He was clClark long before he had any knowledge of his alien heritage. He really didn’t start to become Superman till his teenage years.

Batman on the other hand had a traumatic event in his childhood that altered his character. It’s quite clear that Bruce wayne( at least the one most people see) if an act.

[Cyberstrike]

Whether it's Batman, Superman, or 'Mazing man, I hate the idea that one identity is "fake" and the other is real.

It's a very close minded way to look at characters and it limits them horribly. They may act a bit differently depending on what they';re wearing, but who doesn't act a bit different around their friends than they do at work.

Kal-El isn't pretending to Clark Kent (or Superman) he's just being Clark Kent (or Superman.)

(Now keep in mind there ARE some heroes that are most definitely different people in their costumed identity, but those should be special cases like Hulk/Banner and some incarnations of Dr. Fate.)

The best answer I've read in this thread.

[phantom1592]

I don’t know how Clark could be the facade. He was clClark long before he had any knowledge of his alien heritage. He really didn’t start to become Superman till his teenage years.

Batman on the other hand had a traumatic event in his childhood that altered his character. It’s quite clear that Bruce wayne( at least the one most people see) if an act.

Depends on the 'Clark'.

Whenever he decided that he had to hide who he really was from everyone around him... Clark stopped being 'clark'. I personally believe it had to happen at a young age. When he couldn't play sports for fear of hurting someone. When he'd wear glasses and appear meek. My personal belief is that he wore glasses at an early age to keep him from roughhousing too hard. If you break your glasses... you get in trouble. I learned that early enough myself :P The key for me is that the kids in school with him... can not look at Superman and see Clark. Because he was meek and afraid of 'getting hurt'.

But that version of 'Clark' isn't the REAL Clark.... the Real Clark is the one that Ma and Pa see when he's hanging out on the farm away from spectators.... and THAT Clark isn't who Lois and Perry and Jimmy ever saw. They saw the 'fake' clark.

So really Superman and Clark kent reporter are BOTH masks. The real man is somewhere in between. Same with Batman. He's not the angry growling demon... or the foppish playboy. He's the detective training Dick as a child. There are few people who see either of these characters without SOME mask.

[Adekis]

He still uses violence and he basically does things that can blow up in everyone's face(many times he does goof up) . He also used questionable tactics like fear, threatening.. Etc.He does break the law of the land,even if it is for good causes. Hence, the reluctance. He is also reckless. He wouldn't want people to think badly of Krypton in anyway .Superman might be rootin tootin son of a gun. But, he still feel the guilt of doing what he does, you know. All the more reasons for him to distance his vigilante career from krypton.

I don't think there's really any sign that Golden Age Superman thinks any of the things he does are questionable, and neither do versions of him based on those early comics. If he thought they were questionable, he wouldn't do them. That might sound like circular logic, but I really think it fits the extreme moral clarity of that Superman in particular - and maybe even the moral clarity of super-heroes in general, the person with enough certainty in their own rightness to dress up in a gaudy costume so they can force the world to stop being unjust.

As a 2015 post on the blog, "The Hurting" surmises:

[W]e must establish the means by which the superhero can exist. The premises we must accept are simple, in fact, they number only one: that a man can be right. Every other consideration pales before this assertion. If, as we might posit, a man could ever for a single instant consider himself right, then the laws of nature themselves would bow before him, would prostrate themselves.

Which is perhaps a little bit of a meandering point, but I think it illustrates the simplicity of Superman's moral certainty- the Golden Age Superman, the Ur-Super-Hero, specifically. Superman's moral authority, even the authority of a reckless young man with a good heart, is inextricable from, and just as unassailable as, his incredible powers. As an aside, Grant Morrison literalizes this idea in All-Star Superman # 4, where black Kryptonite that turns Superman evil makes him literally less powerful. But I digress, haha!

As for unintended consequences, sure, that's always a possibility in a serious story, but I think you may be reading a little too much Batman v Superman back into the Golden Age, which despite often dealing with serious issues, rarely did so using "serious stories" - thus the tights, I suppose.

The Golden Age Superman never truly made a bad mistake that I can think of, and neither really have versions of him very self-consciously based on the original. Morrison alludes to that possibility early on in his Action run, when Clark's case against Glen Glenmorgan starts looking like it might fall apart in the face of Superman coercing a confession out of him, but Morrison never follows up on that.

Even in the likes of BvS though, Superman runs into horrific, unintended consequences for his actions - but his doubts arise after he acts and finds consequence, not in anticipation of unwanted consequences. He was still very steadfast in his surety that he could make the world a better place and help out, entirely on his own terms - at first. Either way, distancing the symbol of Superman from Krypton's legacy isn't a concern for him.

Of course, Cavill is the Superman whose action-suit is most obviously visually indebted to his Krypton, but that's a fairly irrelevant side note.

Whether it's Batman, Superman, or 'Mazing man, I hate the idea that one identity is "fake" and the other is real.

Kal-El isn't pretending to Clark Kent (or Superman) he's just being Clark Kent (or Superman.)

Yeah, going back to my first post, I think it's hard to explain the exact complexities of Superman's secret identity, mostly because it's actually really simple and we wind up just turning ourselves in circles to a certain extent. Clark Kent is Superman, and Superman is Clark Kent, and he can inhabit both those "roles" authentically, and he never leaves Clark Kent entirely behind to be Superman, nor can he leave Superman entirely behind when he's Clark.

See, my words already grow convoluted again, haha!

So Clark and Superman grow up together, develop together. The character was never one or the other, he was always both.

Really, just kind of "quoted for truth", I don't have a whole lot to add to that, haha!

I will suggest, I think Maggin sometimes complicated the Clark/Superman false dichotomy a little too much himself, with framing Clark as Superman's "demon" in Miracle Monday and whatnot. He wrote him exquisitely, mind, but I think sometimes when called upon to explain it, it became harder to nail down as effortlessly as it was to just do it.

And I think that's pretty similar to how Superman himself sees it, to be honest. Morrison wrote a bit in Action where Gsptlsnz starts asking Superman if he's really Clark, or really Superman, or what, right? And if I recall correctly, Superman's response is "Let's talk about something else," because it probably makes him feel a little weird to get to deep into how he does what comes so naturally. And similarly, there's a great bit in Lois & Clark, the show that started our illustrious discussion, where Clark's on the phone with his mom, talking about Superman in the third person, and she starts kind of being a little concerned about it? But it's just normal for him.

[manwhohaseverything]

I don't think there's really any sign that Golden Age Superman thinks any of the things he does are questionable, and neither do versions of him based on those early comics. If he thought they were questionable, he wouldn't do them. That might sound like circular logic, but I really think it fits the extreme moral clarity of that Superman in particular - and maybe even the moral clarity of super-heroes in general, the person with enough certainty in their own rightness to dress up in a gaudy costume so they can force the world to stop being unjust.

I think he might himself question his own method. You said, s&s were cynical about a man being that good with power,so they chose an alien. That means they could also be cynical enough to realise the morality issues of superman's activism. Why do i think so? Through out the goldenage and before superman becamea brand, siegel and shuster never portryayed the character as good or bad. The character does the right thing and with many contradictions in his life.This lack of ambiguity in writing is what i miss in modern comics. I disagree, Him goofing up was a major part of the person hood question superman asked in that era. Heck! It's one of the things that lead to the irongiant.There was story where he tries to scare a bunch of juvenile delinquents and took them on "ride". The kids not only didn't get scared, but decided to be superman's underlings. Superman also tried beat up a fits dude. Only to realise he had a bunch of students. So, superman started training them. There were tons of things like that. He would goof up, realise it and adapt to the situation.You may argue that did not happen in big situations. There is a story where superman gets irradiated. A scientist says evacuation is the better option. But, superman doesn't listen he jumps in like moron and aborbs tge radiation. Good news was people were safe from any radiation related problems and didn't have to leave. Bad news was superman became a walking talking nuclear radiation emitter. So, he had to stay away.


See, my interpretation of goldenage superman is not that he didn't goof up. Its that superman was always on his toes. He kept on acting and acting and acting that too at a quick pace. We think he didn't goof up at all. It's like me, breaking a vase and quickly replacing it with money i earned before my aunt came home.

[Lightning Rider]

I really like that in Post Crisis. I enjoy the stories there. I admire the humility in the big guy. But even there i feel like he is trying to lie to himself in some way. Its not like he puts on a suit or wears a ring or says some magic words to get his special abilities. Its part of his very being.

The other way seems more accurate. He disguises as Clark Kent. But that makes him somewhat boring. I feel like the original intent was to have Clark Kent be the guy you identify with. Not unlike Peter Parker. His struggles, mistakes are something common to most people. As Clark Kent, he has a job, has a love interest he can't have and behaves like an 'ordinary' guy. Imagine if its all Superman. Flying around. Saving people. Sitting around in Fortress of Solitude. Its good. But its not Superman.

So, i tend more towards him being Superman then Clark Kent. But a blanket statement like one identity is the true one, looses something imo.

What I like (and haven't thought much about) is that, even when clumsy Clark the disguise is used, I feel like Superman must feel some of the same disappointment a person would feel if they actually were that way, to an extent. Like even in early Golden Age stories he's trying to get with Lois as Clark but always has to sacrifice any potential relationship to protect his secret. Such a bummer!