These comments by Christopher Reeve get into why Clark has to be the disguise

[Stanlos]

I got All Star Superman on the board's almost unanimous recommendation before the COVIDpocalypse. We got all the Superman movies when they were on bundle at Prime. So I have experienced those. What I don't see there is him spending most of his time as Superman rather than Clark. I am trying to imagine how that looks.

From what I have read and seen, I guess it would look a lot like volume 2 Wonder Woman? In the Superman books, there was that weird Bendis run where he just tells the world he and Clark are one and the same. That seemed off to me.

[JBatmanFan05]

You’re being facetious but Clark being the disguise and Superman being real was the norm until Byrne flipped it. Plenty of examples of what that looks like if you want to read it. If you want to see what that looks like just go check out any Pre-Crisis comic, or watch the Donner Superman films. Heck go read All-Star Superman, that has the traditional dynamic of Superman being the true self and “Clark” being the cover.

Yeah, this is how I see it. I think Siegel and Shuster created a more Superman-primary character. I think that's what we see in Fleischer/Famous. Of course comics were shorter and more action driven back then, but still, that was the dynamic. Superman first and real, Clark more secondary.

[The Frog Bros]

You’re being facetious but Clark being the disguise and Superman being real was the norm until Byrne flipped it. Plenty of examples of what that looks like if you want to read it. If you want to see what that looks like just go check out any Pre-Crisis comic, or watch the Donner Superman films. Heck go read All-Star Superman, that has the traditional dynamic of Superman being the true self and “Clark” being the cover.

To wit, there's a cool note in the edition of All-Star I have where Morrison states that "we also decided that each time Clark did something clumsy, he would actually be saving someone's life. Even as Kent, Superman is never off-duty."

[Johnny Thunders!]

For me, I think we need to broaden who Clark is as a person. Clark Kent, despite the glasses and slouched posture, is someone that can see across the solar system and hear the sound of leaves decaying. Somewhere along the way, we decided that Clark Kent was just a regular person and that is misunderstanding what it would be like to be a meta-human surrounded by normal people.

[Kuwagaton]

Yeah, this is how I see it. I think Siegel and Shuster created a more Superman-primary character. I think that's what we see in Fleischer/Famous. Of course comics were shorter and more action driven back then, but still, that was the dynamic. Superman first and real, Clark more secondary.

There was a recent interview where Waid hung onto the line, "disguised as Clark Kent" with tenacity. The problem? Fleischer wasn't Siegel or Shuster. That is a licensed property no different from any other outside media source. Batman's hair is black and not brown like Adam West, Popeye doesn't derive his strength from spinach, Johnny Storm is on the FF and not Herbie, etc.

Here's the first page of Action #1:


Not only is Clark Kent used as his real name and in lieu of not even having the Kents for his cover, but there is no mention of Kal-L or Krypton by name.

"And so was created Superman." But of course, that's semantic. They're kinda either all a disguise, or none of them are. The typical Clark who bumbles is like a mask, but by pretending that he isn't Clark and doesn't think or feel like Clark at all, Superman is also kind of a mask.

[DochaDocha]

Was just thinking that David E. Kelley's failed Wonder Woman pilot had an inelegant portrayal of secret IDs that many of us might agree with. In his show, WW actually had three IDs: two public-facing ones and one private one. I don't remember how she got away with two Dianas, but with some polish it probably could capture Superman's various personas.

[DABellWrites]

There's no way to take Reeve's words as saying Clark is real as the whole concept of Clark being real is based around the idea of treating the surface level details as the most important aspect of a character. Reeve is saying to really get the character and to bring out some magic and vitality have to consider all the things that make you different and how that for better or worse will inform you as a person. The notion of Clark being real is about laser focusing in on the fact that Clark Kent was raised on Earth by human beings and that he looks like a human being. Remember when Byrne pushed for Clark/Real,Superman/Fake narrative one of his main objectives was to wipe out anything that would have given him a childhood apart from the "average" American. He removed the Legion, Superboy in general, any memories of Krypton and any interaction from Krypton period, the bulk of his powers, etc were all removed so he could have what Byrne understood as a quaint and normal American childhood. The whole notion of Clark being real is centered around Clark not believing that anything separates him from anyone around him and embracing his own lack of individuality so that he can be part of the collective. Under the Clark is real doctrine things like being an orphan, an alien, or different aren't factors in his character as they aren't things he considers relevant to who he. He lives in an ignorance is bliss mindset which is rather ironic for a reporter.

Yeah, the Clark is real idea leans heavily on him being an orphan, an alien, and different more so than "I'm like everyone else". It's become one of the major themes of Superman now that Clark will accept he's an alien or struggle to understand his powers and/or what he should do.

Definitely. That line of thinking was arguably the only understanding of Superman that existed at the time. But that's not what his words explain here and if we're just going by "it worked for the movie" then that puts Lex in a pretty weird place for one thing.



With the Golden Age keep in mind that this is exactly what Siegel originally wrote across Action, Superman, and More Fun. The reboot concept was based on both taking Superman back to his core and ... actually rebooting. While the Legion of Superheroes resurfaced in less than a year, the point of restarting the character would have been lost if they complicated the backstory with the same details as before.

I might be reading this wrong, but Siegel would've never had Clark grow up a normal American. Originally, it was Jonathan Kent who told Clark to hide his powers, Superman #1 (1939). In More Fun Time #101, Clark frightened two young boys when he lifted up the car saving the man from dying under it. In all of the early origins (1938-1939), Clark had always scared the orphanage works with his display of strength. https://thoughtsandramblingsofhardwi...tons-superman/ here's an example of Siegel's original intentions. We just got glimpses of what could've been. I found the article the abandoned Siegel-Keaton Superman, while looking for another letter written by Siegel. This origin is similar to what had gotten published in the Newspaper Strips. Let's not forget, Gladiator was a big influence on Superman, and that novel was about a man trying to hide hid awesome strength and speed to blind in with others.

---

It's interesting, the discussion about who is "real" between Superman and Clark Kent, when S & S had laid down the idea very clearly in the comics (books and newspapers). They're one and the same. There shouldn't be a delineation between the two.

[Kuwagaton]

Yeah, the Clark is real idea leans heavily on him being an orphan, an alien, and different more so than "I'm like everyone else". It's become one of the major themes of Superman now that Clark will accept he's an alien or struggle to understand his powers and/or what he should do.



I might be reading this wrong, but Siegel would've never had Clark grow up a normal American. Originally, it was Jonathan Kent who told Clark to hide his powers, Superman #1 (1939). In More Fun Time #101, Clark frightened two young boys when he lifted up the car saving the man from dying under it. In all of the early origins (1938-1939), Clark had always scared the orphanage works with his display of strength. https://thoughtsandramblingsofhardwi...tons-superman/ here's an example of Siegel's original intentions. We just got glimpses of what could've been. I found the article the abandoned Siegel-Keaton Superman, while looking for another letter written by Siegel. This origin is similar to what had gotten published in the Newspaper Strips. Let's not forget, Gladiator was a big influence on Superman, and that novel was about a man trying to hide hid awesome strength and speed to blind in with others.

---

It's interesting, the discussion about who is "real" between Superman and Clark Kent, when S & S had laid down the idea very clearly in the comics (books and newspapers). They're one and the same. There shouldn't be a delineation between the two.

Well I'll actually apologize if I'm the one to misread something. It sounds like you're basing the origin of Superman off the prototype with Keaton. It's a fascinating find but I think it's a little unfair to go with what could have been as having equal merit with the lore we actually have. I mean we're not calling him a bald psychic, are we?

So we agree that the identity issue of how he sees himself isn't either or. But, my point about the Siegel Shuster Superman is that Clark is absolutely not his creation, and Superman is. That draft isn't what I'd call evidence of one thing but it touches what I said: "and so was created Superman." This is the line copied and pasted from Action #1 to the news strip, to Superman #1 despite their differences in details. The news strip btw is more of a reformatted comic than an alternate story, basically the same panels and dialogue. It wasn't until the origin ten years later that he says he'll put on glasses and pretend to be timid, and that origin came from Finger and Boring.

More Fun #101 has a variation on this line ("and thus is born Superboy") and you're just telling half of the bit when he lifts the car, as he quickly makes up an excuse so that they get off his trail. Not only does he go back to being a regular kid, but in the next story another kid calls him "the swellest boy in town." Whether Siegel was talked out of his original ideas, forced to abandon them, or something in between, the story we actually have absolutely gives him a normal life as Clark in a period where he has no knowledge of Krypton or a way to see himself as something other than a very special human. He never comes up with the name Clark Kent for himself in all those years so while "Clark" involves some pretending, again it's not considered his fake guise.

[bat39]

I’ll say the strongest argument for Superman needing to be the “real” identity is that if Clark is “real” then he isn’t going to act any different from Superman. He’s going to be brave and righteous and compassionate because those things are intrinsic to who Superman is. Which means we end up with Clark just being Superman Lite rather than being his own identity. I suppose that’s in-line with the Marvelization of Superman that Byrne set out to perform, Peter Parker really isn’t that different from Spider-Man, his jokes just tend to be more deadpan and less obnoxious. Meanwhile Bruce and Batman tend to be very different.

This reminds me of the iconic story from Action Comics # 484 ("Superman Takes a Wife"), which revealed the circumstances that led to the marriage of the Earth 2 Clark and Lois.

The Wizard casts a spell that erases Superman. What it effectively does is to wipe out the Superman identity, leaving behind a Clark Kent who doesn't know that he was Superman, and who's unaware of his powers. Without the need to pretend to be 'mild-mannered' to conceal a double-life, Clark becomes a crusading reporter taking on the underworld, while also romancing Lois and ultimately marrying her. Of course, Lois eventually figures out that her new husband is actually Superman and gets the Wizard to restore his memories and Superman identity. But the point is that fundamentally it was the same person all along. Clark is inherently a heroic person who's also in love with Lois Lane, and when he didn't have to pretend to be mild-mannered, he acted on that heroic impulse, and on his feelings for Lois. Once he remembers that he's Superman, it's not like he turns back into a different person - it's simply a question of his regaining some memories (and a costume) that he'd had stolen from him.

Clark Kent isn't just a "mild-mannered reporter" disguise for Superman. Clark is the person who created the Superman identity to use his powers publically to help people, and in order to maintain the deception, wears glasses and pretends to be mild-mannered during his day job as a reporter. All Byrne really changed is the degree to which Clark repressed his true nature in his civilian life (which is to say, he didn't much)...something also true of the George Reeves TV show.

There was a recent interview where Waid hung onto the line, "disguised as Clark Kent" with tenacity. The problem? Fleischer wasn't Siegel or Shuster. That is a licensed property no different from any other outside media source. Batman's hair is black and not brown like Adam West, Popeye doesn't derive his strength from spinach, Johnny Storm is on the FF and not Herbie, etc.

Here's the first page of Action #1:


Not only is Clark Kent used as his real name and in lieu of not even having the Kents for his cover, but there is no mention of Kal-L or Krypton by name.

"And so was created Superman." But of course, that's semantic. They're kinda either all a disguise, or none of them are. The typical Clark who bumbles is like a mask, but by pretending that he isn't Clark and doesn't think or feel like Clark at all, Superman is also kind of a mask.

Yes, I always come back to that line in Action Comics # 1 when people claim that "Superman is real and Clark is a disguise" is the way it 'originally' was.

Honestly, if you actually read the early Siegal/Shuster stories (as I did, most recently a couple of years ago), a lot of Superman's adventures start out as Clark investigating crimes/injustices as a reporter. Superman was just the means by which he could use his powers openly.

[Stanlos]

This reminds me of the iconic story from Action Comics # 484 ("Superman Takes a Wife"), which revealed the circumstances that led to the marriage of the Earth 2 Clark and Lois.

The Wizard casts a spell that erases Superman. What it effectively does is to wipe out the Superman identity, leaving behind a Clark Kent who doesn't know that he was Superman, and who's unaware of his powers. Without the need to pretend to be 'mild-mannered' to conceal a double-life, Clark becomes a crusading reporter taking on the underworld, while also romancing Lois and ultimately marrying her. Of course, Lois eventually figures out that her new husband is actually Superman and gets the Wizard to restore his memories and Superman identity. But the point is that fundamentally it was the same person all along. Clark is inherently a heroic person who's also in love with Lois Lane, and when he didn't have to pretend to be mild-mannered, he acted on that heroic impulse, and on his feelings for Lois. Once he remembers that he's Superman, it's not like he turns back into a different person - it's simply a question of his regaining some memories (and a costume) that he'd had stolen from him.

Clark Kent isn't just a "mild-mannered reporter" disguise for Superman. Clark is the person who created the Superman identity to use his powers publically to help people, and in order to maintain the deception, wears glasses and pretends to be mild-mannered during his day job as a reporter. All Byrne really changed is the degree to which Clark repressed his true nature in his civilian life (which is to say, he didn't much)...something also true of the George Reeves TV show.



Yes, I always come back to that line in Action Comics # 1 when people claim that "Superman is real and Clark is a disguise" is the way it 'originally' was.

Honestly, if you actually read the early Siegal/Shuster stories (as I did, most recently a couple of years ago), a lot of Superman's adventures start out as Clark investigating crimes/injustices as a reporter. Superman was just the means by which he could use his powers openly.

I wonder if it is like Wonder Woman where the myth of the Amazons was used as background and explanation but those myths were not originally the point but in later years kind of took over the character's mythos.

[John Venus]

I think each identity serves it's own need and Clark avoids each identity overlapping the other.

Clark Kent, the reporter represents his passion for writing, give him some semblance of normality and keeps him grounded. But he knows he is not fully like every one else, when he is in the fortress looking over Kryptonian history, that's Kal El. Superman exists to help people, to do great deeds and what ordinary mortals can't and he doesn't do it because of tragedy, it's just the best thing he can imagine doing with his powers.

[Jim Kelly]

ACTION COMICS No. 1 (June 1938)

Here's the first page of Action #1:

Well, not really, this is the first page of ACTION COMICS No. 1 (June 1938) [technically it's a ".jpg" but of the real thing]:

[Kuwagaton]

I think that's the first story of "Supermen" and not Superman though. Staples must be the difference

[Jim Kelly]

I think that's the first story of "Supermen" and not Superman though. Staples must be the difference

Back in them days, people tended to personalize their copies of comics. I know I personalized most of my 1960s comics. Obviously to increase their value. As I recall, I harvested this ".jpg" from an eBay listing of a coverless copy of the original comic. How many hands it passed through, before it went up for auction, I do not know. But the previous owner must have thought it should be plural--"supermen"--as all male identifying super-beings in comics are supermen. A very scholarly annotation.

[bat39]

I wonder if it is like Wonder Woman where the myth of the Amazons was used as background and explanation but those myths were not originally the point but in later years kind of took over the character's mythos.

If you mean did Krypton and the mythology surrounding it take over the Superman franchise, then yeah, definitely. For the first decade or so, Krypton was only mentioned in connection with the origin story (which itself was barely recapped) and basically served as a rationale for Superman's powers. It was only with the introduction of kryptonite in the comics (which happened in Superman # 61 in 1949) that Krypton first became relevant to the ongoing Superman stories. And then throughout the 50's it kinda exploded - multiple variations of Kryptonite, Kryptonian villains, the Phantom Zone, Krypto the Super Dog, the Bottled City of Kandor, the Fortress of Solitude, time-travel trips to Krypton, and of course, Supergirl and Argo City.

All of which is great, and this wild period of creativity is the reason why Superman became such a dominant force in pop-culture that endures even today. But the flipside is that Superman's alienness really came to the forefront, while 'Clark Kent' increasingly started to look like a human disguise. Granted, in the 50's and 60's, it's not as though the writing was sophisticated enough to really dive into the identity issue. But in the Bronze Age, writers did start to dive into it, and increasingly came down on the side of Superman being Kryptonian first and foremost - a "strange visitor" to our world. The Donner films also really leaned into that aspect.

Byrne, with his reboot, tried to turn the clock back to the Golden Age (figuratively speaking), reduce the relevance of Krypton and Superman's alienness to the mythos, and instead to really double down on his human connections and his life as Clark. Maybe Byrne went too far in the other direction, and even his efforts needed to be course corrected. But I think today the Superman franchise is richer for the 'happy middle' that's been found, where Clark Kent very much is real, and his human life and human upbringing underpin his personality, but he also embraces his Kryptonian heritage and his identity as Kal-El. Superman is very much Clark Kent's invention, but it's also a way for Kal-El to openly express his Kryptonian heritage and the powers it grants him on earth.