After "Truth"... Secret Identity: Yes or No?

[The Kid]

Not for good but I do want him to without an identity for some time. It shakes things up and puts Clark in new situations for a while. I actually wish someone would do something similar with Batman but it never happened. It's an interesting situation.

But do I want it to be permanent? Nah

[magha_regulus]

I'm so torn!!! I want to see the story play out before i make up my mind.

[Ascended]

Well, I had to vote "no" but that's not how I "really" feel.

Here's the thing. Most of the trappings of Superman's mythology are still in play for no real reason beyond tradition. Superman is secretly a mild mannered reporter simply because he always has been. The reasons for Superman having that job stopped making sense a long, long time ago, and the more advanced technology becomes the less believable the Clark Kent disguise is (and it's thin ice to begin with). But no one has ever really sat down, and truly explored why these concepts should remain. No one has ever had the balls to say "Does Clark Kent actually matter to the mythos, or are we all just so used to it we can't imagine it otherwise?" and actually go there for any real length of time. I want TRUTH to explore these concepts and what happens without them fully. I want time, effort, and dedication here (which is something DC completely and utterly lacks with Superman, sadly).

And at the end of it all, after we've seen a Superman without Clark Kent explored to its fullest, I want to see a clean-cut and understandable reason given for why it all matters and why Clark Kent should be "brought back". Because I do believe that Clark is essential to the character; he's too vital a narrative tool not to use and a whole lot of the classic mythos requires him (moreso than Superman, in fact). But tradition is never a good enough reason to keep doing anything, so I vote "no" here while hoping that Pak and Yang can give me adequate reason to change my answer to "yes" (as I believe they will).

[Auguste Dupin]

For the record, I didn't vote anything.
What I want is first to have the new status quo to explored for a pretty decent amount. A Superman with his secret exposed is a pretty unique situation, and I want to see where the character would go without it, to use this as a template for new interactions, new agendas. I want this storyline to prove that the whole "glasses Clark is something I need to remain human" to be shown as the whole of BS it has always been.
And when they go back to the classic dual identity, I want this experience to be used to create a better Clark Kent. Not necessarily one with a better disguise (although I guess it wouldn't hurt it they found a way while keeping the iconic elements), but one with a better role, a better purpose.
Finally, I want Kentville to remain a thing (although I guess they would have to change the name for something like "Superville"). Myskin on another tread suggested the idea to have Clark's neighbours still being aware of the fact he's Superman and still supportive of his actions. I think it would be interesting.

[misslane]

Here's the thing. Most of the trappings of Superman's mythology are still in play for no real reason beyond tradition.

How do you reason that? Isn't it assuming a lot of creators, and others who have worked on the character, to suggest that they didn't see an inherent value and utility in those elements of the mythology?

The reasons for Superman having that job stopped making sense a long, long time ago

Newspapers are dying, journalism isn't. Superman finding it useful to use the power of words and of truth to hold the powerful accountable to complement the themes of his myth with a "the pen is mightier than the sword" theme seems perfectly apt.

I want this storyline to prove that the whole "glasses Clark is something I need to remain human" to be shown as the whole of BS it has always been.

How can Superman have a life without Glasses!Clark? It allows him to have privacy, and it allows him to engage with people without them having to filter or adapt their behavior knowing that he's a celebrity and superpowered being or without him having to worry that if he's shown making a friend that they'll be used by a villain to get to him and control him. How, also, can this arc fully accomplish that task if Superman is simultaneously depowered so that, in a sense, he is forced to engage more with humans at their level by necessity?

[Auguste Dupin]

How can Superman have a life without Glasses!Clark? It allows him to have privacy, and it allows him to engage with people without them having to filter or adapt their behavior knowing that he's a celebrity and superpowered being or without him having to worry that if he's shown making a friend that they'll be used by a villain to get to him and control him. How, also, can this arc fully accomplish that task if Superman is simultaneously depowered so that, in a sense, he is forced to engage more with humans at their level by necessity?

In order:
-Since celebrities can have a life and privacy, I don't find the argument especially compelling. Sure, some people may be prone to hero worship, but if Superman is half the nice humble hero he's cracked up to be, then he has the strengh of character to not let it go to his head and to keep interacting with them as equals.
-Considering that half of his iconic supporting cast is already prone to being kidnapped by bad guys even though nobody knew he was Clark Kent, I don't find, again, the argument to be especially compelling. Frankly, if there's one thing Superman is good at, it's saving people in danger, even when he's the reason they're in danger in the first place. Hell, the last Batman/Superman arc proves that you dont need to hurt someone he knows on a personal level to make him suffer. Just go for someone he saved as Superman, and you'll get a strong reaction out of him. Also, "he's doing it to protect his friends" is not the same argument as " he's doing it to remain human" which was the argument I was criticizing.
-Just because he's doing it out of partial necessity (and nothing actually forced to do so he could have lived as a hermit in Alaska for instance) doesn't mean he can't learn a valuable lesson about engaging with humans at their level and keep doing it because it works. If there's one very human experience, it's to learn to adapt to change.

[Ascended]

How do you reason that? Isn't it assuming a lot of creators, and others who have worked on the character, to suggest that they didn't see an inherent value and utility in those elements of the mythology?

If they saw any value or utility in these elements, then most of those creators have done a pretty poor job of expressing it. We've been told these things matter, but its rare to actually see it. And creators have very little to do with anything, Superman is a corporately owned property and it's WB who decides, ultimately, what happens to the character. And they want him to remain in a familiar, marketable shape. Because comics are such a non-profit issue for them, useful mainly as a cheap IP farm, they're clearly willing to let a lot of stuff be done on the short term, like electric powers and replacements and millions of other Kryptonians flying around. But in the end, it always returns to the classic status quo because that's what the people recognize and that's what they buy.

Newspapers are dying, journalism isn't. Superman finding it useful to use the power of words and of truth to hold the powerful accountable to complement the themes of his myth with a "the pen is mightier than the sword" theme seems perfectly apt.

The original purpose for Clark to be a reporter was so that he could stay up-to-date with the city, hear about trouble as soon as possible, and respond accordingly. And being a reporter gave Clark an excuse to go into trouble spots without raising suspicion. The first part of that stopped mattering as soon as Clark became powerful enough to monitor Metropolis with his own senses, and it makes even less sense today in a world with a 24 hour news cycle and Google Alerts. The second part of that could still be a great narrative tool...(and should be)...but no one really bothers using it all that much. Clark being a journalist? Still viable. Clark working at a paper? Not so much. So yes, working at the Daily Planet newspaper does need some serious re-evaluation and critical thought.

[misslane]

In order:
-Since celebrities can have a life and privacy, I don't find the argument especially compelling. Sure, some people may be prone to hero worship, but if Superman is half the nice humble hero he's cracked up to be, then he has the strengh of character to not let it go to his head and to keep interacting with them as equals.

What? I'm not talking about how he would interact with the people. I'm talking about the people would interact with him. Even if some can somehow see past his larger than life persona, I find it difficult to believe they wouldn't treat Superman differently in conversation than they would someone they think is just a human civilian like them. I mean, I don't care how down to earth President Obama is, if I met him I would feel differently and act differently with him than I would with, say, my local librarian.

-Considering that half of his iconic supporting cast is already prone to being kidnapped by bad guys even though nobody knew he was Clark Kent, I don't find, again, the argument to be especially compelling. Frankly, if there's one thing Superman is good at, it's saving people in danger, even when he's the reason they're in danger in the first place. Hell, the last Batman/Superman arc proves that you dont need to hurt someone he knows on a personal level to make him suffer. Just go for someone he saved as Superman, and you'll get a strong reaction out of him.

I'm talking about him making new friends. How can he feel okay with making new connections if he knows it's like putting a target on their backs? I don't care if there's a meta reason for him almost always being able to save the day, I can't imagine him being okay with taking that kind of chance or being okay with, at the very least, making it possible for friends to endure pain and torture as long as they escape with their lives. On The West Wing, kidnapping the President's daughter, Zoe, was used as a means of controlling the President so he would give in to demands. Getting a strong reaction, in other words, would play right into a villain's hands. Lois was shot in UMEC, and almost died, in "Sacrifice" precisely because a villain wanted Superman to cross into a war zone. There are tremendous benefits that come from having a secret identity.

Also, "he's doing it to protect his friends" is not the same argument as " he's doing it to remain human" which was the argument I was criticizing.

If Superman always has to worry and is always "on" when he's out and about, how can he really be himself, rest, and connect intimately with people in ways that comprise what it means to live a human life?

-Just because he's doing it out of partial necessity (and nothing actually forced to do so he could have lived as a hermit in Alaska for instance) doesn't mean he can't learn a valuable lesson about engaging with humans at their level and keep doing it because it works. If there's one very human experience, it's to learn to adapt to change.

Sure, but does that imply that Superman was in need of this lesson and that before this happened he actually was less engaged with humans and the human experience? Can he really keep doing it the same way if he gets his powers back fully or if he regains his secret identity?

[misslane]

If they saw any value or utility in these elements, then most of those creators have done a pretty poor job of expressing it. We've been told these things matter, but its rare to actually see it. And creators have very little to do with anything, Superman is a corporately owned property and it's WB who decides, ultimately, what happens to the character. And they want him to remain in a familiar, marketable shape. Because comics are such a non-profit issue for them, useful mainly as a cheap IP farm, they're clearly willing to let a lot of stuff be done on the short term, like electric powers and replacements and millions of other Kryptonians flying around. But in the end, it always returns to the classic status quo because that's what the people recognize and that's what they buy.

Again, that's still assuming a lot and assuming that creative interests and financial interests can't be aligned. Just because it could be seen as beneficial to the bottom line doesn't mean that they automatically dislike it. I'm sure there have been a few creators here and there who have had issues with one element or another, but unless you have some hard evidence to back up your claim that the traditional elements are just there out of habit, then we're going to have to agree to disagree.

The original purpose for Clark to be a reporter was so that he could stay up-to-date with the city, hear about trouble as soon as possible, and respond accordingly. And being a reporter gave Clark an excuse to go into trouble spots without raising suspicion. The first part of that stopped mattering as soon as Clark became powerful enough to monitor Metropolis with his own senses, and it makes even less sense today in a world with a 24 hour news cycle and Google Alerts.

Right, but the stories have already evolved past this. Morrison, for example, was very interested in showing how journalism facilitated Clark's social activist tendencies and the genuine love and admiration he had for the people in the profession who did it right and did it well. He also enjoys it, according to Earth One and Sholly Fisch's back ups in Action, because it allows him to engage in a profession that is actually not helped by his superpowers; writing eloquently and powerfully to communicate, educate, and empower aren't things flying is going to make better.

The second part of that could still be a great narrative tool...(and should be)...but no one really bothers using it all that much.

Then people should use it better and more often, like Morrison did.

[gwangung]

The original purpose for Clark to be a reporter was so that he could stay up-to-date with the city, hear about trouble as soon as possible, and respond accordingly. And being a reporter gave Clark an excuse to go into trouble spots without raising suspicion. The first part of that stopped mattering as soon as Clark became powerful enough to monitor Metropolis with his own senses, and it makes even less sense today in a world with a 24 hour news cycle and Google Alerts. The second part of that could still be a great narrative tool...(and should be)...but no one really bothers using it all that much. Clark being a journalist? Still viable. Clark working at a paper? Not so much. So yes, working at the Daily Planet newspaper does need some serious re-evaluation and critical thought.

Yes. There are SOME celebrity bloggers out there, who've been quite influential (and manage even to come close to their reputation with what they write). It is no big stretch of the imagination to imagine Clark working at a Grantland or Vox-like site. Would that raise questions of how he conducts THAT type of life? Using his super powers there to help uncover corruption?

[Cipher]

No; I'd rather they do what the best Superman stories have been leaning toward for years -- removing the line between Clark and Superman. Hero, reporter, Clark, Supes, it's all one guy. He can finally stop downplaying or exaggerating certain elements and actually be himself.

But perhaps more than that, I just want to see the stories deal with this as a development and not fall prey to ham-fisted status-quo resets.

That's actually one of the joys and benefits of having the company use reboots long-term. Until the next line-wide reset (which will, one day, come), the worlds of these characters can actually progress beyond their status quos.

[Jon Clark]

What? I'm not talking about how he would interact with the people. I'm talking about the people would interact with him. Even if some can somehow see past his larger than life persona, I find it difficult to believe they wouldn't treat Superman differently in conversation than they would someone they think is just a human civilian like them. I mean, I don't care how down to earth President Obama is, if I met him I would feel differently and act differently with him than I would with, say, my local librarian.

Or look at a doctor. How many doctors complain that when they are out socially they get asked for a spot diagnosis. Now imagine all the people knocking on Clark's door when they need help opening a jar, or want him to use his vision powers to find their lost keys or think that the guy up the street is acting a bit suspicious. Imagine the constant requests to get involved with this charity or that positive event. Part of Clark's role is to give Superman a place to go when he needs a break from all the things people expect of Superman

I'm talking about him making new friends. How can he feel okay with making new connections if he knows it's like putting a target on their backs? I don't care if there's a meta reason for him almost always being able to save the day, I can't imagine him being okay with taking that kind of chance or being okay with, at the very least, making it possible for friends to endure pain and torture as long as they escape with their lives. On The West Wing, kidnapping the President's daughter, Zoe, was used as a means of controlling the President so he would give in to demands. Getting a strong reaction, in other words, would play right into a villain's hands. Lois was shot in UMEC, and almost died, in "Sacrifice" precisely because a villain wanted Superman to cross into a war zone. There are tremendous benefits that come from having a secret identity.

Forget people like Lois and Jimmy who admittedly are known associates of Superman and thus targets. What about Pete Ross who had no connection to Superman until it came out that Pete's childhood friend grew up to be Superman? What about the unfortunate guy who is Clark's neighbor and now has to worry what happens when Mongul or Metal0 comes after Clark at home? What about the fact that Clark used to be able to get a cup of coffee without thinking that the coffee-shop and all its customers were now in danger by his mere presence.

[Myskin]

Well, Auguste and Ascended already said whatever I could have said. Probably better than me.

In short, there are only two real reasons to preserve Superman's classic version, that is: tradition and marketing strategies (which are reciprocally connected elements, by the way). Aside from personal and subjective tastes there is no other reason, and I think that the majority of the arguments which envision the classic version of the character as the only "indispensable" one are tainted by the fact that it's the most familiar version, and therefore any reasoning is "forced" to have that version as the "necessary" conclusion. If we had to follow a logical argument a bit more seriously and fairly, we would come up with a version of Superman which is very different from the classic one.

For example, if we had to strictly follow the logic "Superman mustn't reveal his public identity because it would put his friends in danger", at the end of it all Superman shouldn't have any public human relationship at all. Doesn't the nickname "Superman's pal" put Jimmy Olsen in constant danger?

Again, the fact that Superman MUST be a journalist because this allows him to keep in touch with real-world problems. First of all, I have never seen Superman portraited as a realistic journalist in 75+ years aside from a couple of occasions. But if he really wanted to keep in touch with real-world problems, aren't there better ways to do it? Shouldn't he join Médecins Sans Frontières, for example? Shouldn't he really dedicate his life and career to this?

Should I talk again about the glasses?

It's not that forced logic really bugs me (it's a comic book, logic is always forced on a certain level), but the fact that DC always chooses blindly to regain the classic features just because of marketing strategies or tradition, not because a real, discernible reason is really SHOWN within the stories (rather than TOLD by the book), or because in the classic version the features are really coherent and "click" well one with the other (hint: they don't).

As far as I am concerned, Pak's current version makes more sense than the classic one and when (if) they will go back to classic Superman, they should find a very good and discernible reason to have him as a glasses-wearing metropolitan journalist. Basically they should behave as if Superman as a character had been conceived in 2015.

[Myskin]

By the way, it's not that (slight or hard) modifications to the status quo aren't possible.
Marvel has decided to get Peter Parker off his job as a photographer at the Daily Bugle and make him a scientist (as far as I remember: I don't follow Spidey these days). Now, I am sure that they WON'T get back to the classic version anytime soon. Probably never. For a number of reasons: because having him as the official Spider-Man photographer doesn't make sense anymore (it was an extremely monotonous idea, albeit a funny one, which made sense during the classic Marvel age because comic books were conceived in a different manner, etc.), because they decided, and justly so, that Peter can't be a teen forever (and his job as a photographer always seemed like a part-time job rather than a real professional direction), etc.

At the same time, DC decided to make Dick Grayson a super Agent. It's too early to tell, but the version created by King is so interesting and convincing, and the Bat-Family is so crowded that I sincerely doubt that we will have him back in the Nightwing mantle anytime soon. I am absolutely sure that when Dick became Nightwing, several readers thought that it was just a temporary status, and he would become Robin once again sooner or later. But that never happened.

[Auguste Dupin]

What? I'm not talking about how he would interact with the people. I'm talking about the people would interact with him. Even if some can somehow see past his larger than life persona, I find it difficult to believe they wouldn't treat Superman differently in conversation than they would someone they think is just a human civilian like them. I mean, I don't care how down to earth President Obama is, if I met him I would feel differently and act differently with him than I would with, say, my local librarian.



I'm talking about him making new friends. How can he feel okay with making new connections if he knows it's like putting a target on their backs? I don't care if there's a meta reason for him almost always being able to save the day, I can't imagine him being okay with taking that kind of chance or being okay with, at the very least, making it possible for friends to endure pain and torture as long as they escape with their lives. On The West Wing, kidnapping the President's daughter, Zoe, was used as a means of controlling the President so he would give in to demands. Getting a strong reaction, in other words, would play right into a villain's hands. Lois was shot in UMEC, and almost died, in "Sacrifice" precisely because a villain wanted Superman to cross into a war zone. There are tremendous benefits that come from having a secret identity.



If Superman always has to worry and is always "on" when he's out and about, how can he really be himself, rest, and connect intimately with people in ways that comprise what it means to live a human life?



Sure, but does that imply that Superman was in need of this lesson and that before this happened he actually was less engaged with humans and the human experience? Can he really keep doing it the same way if he gets his powers back fully or if he regains his secret identity?

-Well, to keep your exemple, if you can't go past the president to see the man, that's not Obama's "problem", that's yours. Same for Clark.

- If that really was an issue for Clark , he wouldn't let Jimmy call himself "Superman's pal" or be all chummy with Lois in public. Seems to me that, if that was intended to be an issue, the execution of most of Superman related medium in the last 30 years has been pretty terrible.
Also, how many friends does glasses Clark have?
Plus again, considering who Superman is,assaulting a random woman on the street, pointing a shotgun at her head, and yelling "if Superman doesn't show up in 15 minutes, I'm gonna kill that chick" is about as effective as threatening his actual friends.

-But Superman is always "on". How many times do we see him minding his own business as Clark, only to pick up a distress signal or screams of terror or whatever, and run to the nearest closest to change instantly? Doesn't sound like an "off time" to me, and if that was the point of him putting on glasses, it's really not effective.

-Well, that's up to him now, isn't it? Having a Clark closer to his neighbourhoodand, and to be more willing to get involved as both his personas doesn't strike me as impossible.