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

[Lightning Rider]

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.

Great post. So much dimension, and they dare call him boring or one-dimensional.

[Adekis]

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.

That's fair, I meant to say that I think the modern sense of mistakes as something you can't necessarily fix is more or less absent from the Golden Age. He rarely ever had a major lasting impact from a screw-up, and he never indulged in navel-gazing about the morality of his actions if he were to screw up, which is what you seem to be arguing with regard to the initial question of "How much is 'Superman' a result of Krypton?" Instead of worrying a lot about his mistakes like he does more often today, he just got on with fixing them in most stories I've read. I can think of only two truly bittersweet endings to a story in the Golden Age - the death of Lil Danvers, "the Blonde Tigress," who jumps in front of a bullet to save Superman's life and winds up dead because of it, and the death of Dolores Winters at the hands of the Ultra-Humanite - neither of which was really Superman's fault.

Superman made some pretty ambitious moves that would lend themselves to going awry, but hardly ever did in any lasting way. If the "going awry" was something Siegel wanted to focus on, I can't help but think that he would have focused on it more.

Instead, that bittersweet note of tragedy really only starts coming into Superman's world later on, when he starts mourning Krypton a little more actively - which is still not based on anything in his own actions or perceived recklessness. His inability to re-size Kandor, or to cure Mon-El's lead poisoning or the impossibility of saving Lyla Ler-Rol when Krypton explodes - now those are failures that weighs on him - for decades of published material, in some cases. And if you want to ascribe his scientific studies to "Kal-El" and his action hero feats to "Superman," then some of those are really Kal-El's failures. Though as I've said, I think that's a false dichotomy, and in some ways that's my whole point, haha.

[manwhohaseverything]

That's fair, I meant to say that I think the modern sense of mistakes as something you can't necessarily fix is more or less absent from the Golden Age. He rarely ever had a major lasting impact from a screw-up, and he never indulged in navel-gazing about the morality of his actions if he were to screw up, which is what you seem to be arguing with regard to the initial question of "How much is 'Superman' a result of Krypton?" Instead of worrying a lot about his mistakes like he does more often today, he just got on with fixing them in most stories I've read. I can think of only two truly bittersweet endings to a story in the Golden Age - the death of Lil Danvers, "the Blonde Tigress," who jumps in front of a bullet to save Superman's life and winds up dead because of it, and the death of Dolores Winters at the hands of the Ultra-Humanite - neither of which was really Superman's fault.

Superman made some pretty ambitious moves that would lend themselves to going awry, but hardly ever did in any lasting way. If the "going awry" was something Siegel wanted to focus on, I can't help but think that he would have focused on it more.

Instead, that bittersweet note of tragedy really only starts coming into Superman's world later on, when he starts mourning Krypton a little more actively - which is still not based on anything in his own actions or perceived recklessness. His inability to re-size Kandor, or to cure Mon-El's lead poisoning or the impossibility of saving Lyla Ler-Rol when Krypton explodes - now those are failures that weighs on him - for decades of published material, in some cases. And if you want to ascribe his scientific studies to "Kal-El" and his action hero feats to "Superman," then some of those are really Kal-El's failures. Though as I've said, I think that's a false dichotomy, and in some ways that's my whole point, haha.

These guys are also meant to be heroic badasses. In modern era, batman does a lot more thing that blow up in his face and even does. Yet, they the guy walks away with nothing. I have hardly seen batman actions blowing him that he can't fix and bruce being blamed that intensely. He made a plan that could kill his friends that blew up in his face. Yet, he was the hero of the story. People bought into that. Why? Batman is a swashbuckling hero now. Superman, not so much anymore . Also, those old stories were episodic.Long lasting things can't happen.

My reluctance is superman's goof up causing people to blame krypton. Superman wouldn't let that happen. But, superman needs to be the man of action. Always on the toe, even if he makes mistakes some that can't be fixed. I also think superman would have never let ma and pa know he was doing this sort of thing. It's hard for me to see them approve Clark's whole shtick. Helping people, fine. But, the way clark runs around here and there. It's like the guy had some suger rush.lol!!! They wouldn't approve of violence as a means as well. Most of all they would afraid for their kid. I mean, even steel can break. Clark would disagree, he only does it because some people were beyond talks. Let's face it, Superman will always be controversial figure either in universe or out universe. Before, he was infamous in comics. Then when he became famous, let that part go. Now for decades , he is a controversial figure with people that hate him, don't care for him and love him outside the universe .So, that means the controversy that is superman will always remain. Superman wouldn't want stupid narratives to be built around krypton or his family. It was his choice, not his parents or kryptons what he does. Anything coming for him, he wouldn't give two hoot unless it's constructive. The guy is a champion who does the right thing. Champion don't get bogged down by what people think. They fight a neverending battle. One hook at a time. But, his parents or his world would be below the belt for him.So, he would want to hide it.

Superman has no past or no relationship for controversies to work on(maybe some of underlings, who chose to be with him). Superman is the strongman i.e real clark without any connections . Both clark identity and kal identity are tied to things. Narratives, character assignation, physical threats.. Etc can be something that can harm both krypton and his earth family. Krypton might be dead, but it's people aren't nor its legacy. Superman would want to keep that legacy intact.

[Jim Kelly]

In the context of LOIS & CLARK, Clark Kent is who he is. He's Clark Kent all his life--and for some reason wearing glasses, even though he has no secret identity. And he comes to Metropolis, because he's been a reporter for some time and now he'd like to work on a major paper. And he meets Lois Lane. And he saves people--but doing that in his regular clothes is problematic. So he and his parents decide on him creating another identity--which Lois later calls Superman. And he tries out a few different suits and gets the idea that maybe he should not wear the glasses. And wow, nobody recognizes him.

So really, Superman is something he just fell into being, but he was always Clark Kent. And the show is mainly about Lois and Clark--it's not supposed to be about Superman. The real romance is the one developing between Lois and Clark. That's why Dean Cain fits the role, because he's the right romantic lead for a Clark Kent opposite Teri Hatcher's magnificent Lois Lane. He's an okay Superman, but he spends most of his time being Clark Kent (at least at the beginning of the series), so that's the important character that he's playing and why he was cast.

It's not the kind of version of the Superman story you would want in all media, but it works for the particular slant that's being used on this television show.

In the context of the dialogue, as Clark is giving exposition to Lois to explain his reasoning, "Clark is who I am" makes sense. But it's still bad writing. Genuine characters don't do that. They don't tell the audience who they are--they show. In a story, no one should ever make these kinds of explanatory statements about themselves. It's not good art. It's better to refer to something else and have the audience draw the inference

Good writing is--

Alfred: . . . One day I found a child playing with a ruby as big as a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing the stones away.

Bruce: Then why steal them?

Alfred: Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

He's talking about the Joker by way of example but he never makes a declarative statement like "The Joker is a man who likes to see the world burn." Given Clark's globe-trotting experience, he could have told a story about someone he met in Tanzania and then leave it to Lois to understand that he was really talking about himself.

I'm just saying.

[Powerboy]

It depends oh which version of the character. But, setting aside names, the person Lois sees in private (when she knows he is Superman), the person Ma and Pa Kent see in private, is the real person regardless of the name. In some incarnations, there is no doubt that "Superman" is a bit of an act. But not even close to how much of an act Clark is to everybody that does not know he is also Superman.

[stargazer01]

I'm not sure if I already replied to this thread.. but just in case I didn't.. I don't quite agree, but like some said, it depends on what Superman version. If it's more about Clark Kent, than it makes sense, but it definitely limits the character's full potential as a science fiction and dramatic character.

He is definitely much more than just Clark Kent, he is also Earth's greatest protector, Superman, and the alien Kal-El from Krypton. He starts as something but becomes much more complex and fascinating with time as he discovers his mission and full potential. There is more rich storytelling ground when he has a greater range of personality and responsibilities.

[Thor-Ul]

There is Kal-El, the orphan from Krypton.
There is Clark Kent, the adopted son of Martha and Jon.
There is the Clark Kent who works in the Daily Planet and lives in Metropolis.
There is Superman, the superhero.
There is Kal-El, the last son of Krypton, who spend his time in solitude in his fortress.

More than identities, I would say than he has several roles and likes to keep this aspects of his live separated.
If we compared Superman with Batman, for Bruce, being Batman could be considerated a torment. For Superman the torment doesn't come from being Superman, the torment comes from being Kal-El, the lone survivor.

[stargazer01]

There is Kal-El, the orphan from Krypton.
There is Clark Kent, the adopted son of Martha and Jon.
There is the Clark Kent who works in the Daily Planet and lives in Metropolis.
There is Superman, the superhero.
There is Kal-El, the last son of Krypton, who spend his time in solitude in his fortress.

More than identities, I would say than he has several roles and likes to keep this aspects of his live separated.
If we compared Superman with Batman, for Bruce, being Batman could be considerated a torment. For Superman the torment doesn't come from being Superman, the torment comes from being Kal-El, the lone survivor.

Would love to see more Superman in the Fortress of Solitude in live action learning about his home planet, his people and doing stuff there. Interesting stuff other than having a good time with Lois haha..

I think there is also pathos in Superman when he can't save everybody, but some people expect him to.