Should Superman's Clark Kent disguise fool Lois Lane?

[Carabas]

I saw an interesting article on Lois Lane and how she would able to identify Clark as Superman pretty quickly:

https://www.google.ca/amp/medicalxpr...roid-rogers-ca

I also thought Lois being fooled ny Superman's ID made her seem stupid. Sure Superman can fool the average citizen and Lex has some mental blindspots that prevents him realizing the truth, but Lois is supposed to be smart and has investigative skills and has seen both Supes and Clark in person, no way would she be fooled for long.

Do you think Lois should be fooled by Superman's disguise?

The thing is, Lois Lane is like the one person on earth who wasn't fooled, and who spent story after story after story trying to prove that Clark Kent is Superman, with Supes coming up with ever more ludicrous power stunts to prove her wrong.

[Jim Kelly]

But you're talking about comics that were published twenty-five or more years ago. You might be right that people today can't get into those comics. A lot of people who buy them now might just be speculators who have no real interest in the stories. So maybe to the 21st century mind of guys in their thirties or forties who buy comics for spectacular images of things blowing up real good, these kind of comics have no interest.

For a comic book or a long running cartoon show to have any consistent narrative voice over twenty years, where the characters never age and the same plots have to be recycled for new audiences, I'm not sure how it's possible to have something written with a consistent authorial perspective. You're kind of attacking the whole medium of super-hero comic books not just Superman.

At different times, comics have been written for different audiences. So yeah, if you took all the Archie comics and read them as though they were CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, you'd say that Dostoevsky really doesn't know how to write a Russian novel when Archie continuously never gets anywhere with Veronica and Betty. And when's he going to murder the pawn-broker?

If you took the comics for each time and place they were written, then I could tell you why certain examples satisfied the readers for which they were intended. One can't suppose that all comics ever written are trying to satisfy the interests of one person living in the 21st century. Why would they?

[The Overlord]

The thing is, Lois Lane is like the one person on earth who wasn't fooled, and who spent story after story after story trying to prove that Clark Kent is Superman, with Supes coming up with ever more ludicrous power stunts to prove her wrong.

See I think the silly power stunts Superman uses to prove Lois wrong, instead of just coming clean, really comes off as outdated and doesn't stand the test of time. I think modern readers would roll their eyes at such things.

There was a Ms. Marvel issue (the new Ms. Marvel)where: (Don't read if you don't want to read somewhat old spoilers)

Ms. Marvel's mother revealed she knew she was a super hero, right from the beginning and it was touching a scene and it made for a good emotionally impactful story. That is what modern readers want to see, not silly antics with secret IDs and power stunts.

[The World]

But that doesn't jive with her skepticism and investigative skills, I don't think Lois should ever take things as face value, she would be a bad investigative reporter if she did. if Lois just took things at face value, she would believe Post Crisis Lex is just a good hearted philanthropist, that is not the case. I think Lois not applying the same critical eye to Clark and superman, makes her look foolish and out of character. Lois should see the potential for stories everywhere, even close to home.



Here is a good question, how is any of that good writing? This kind of convoluted non sense and lack of story progression is what keeps new people from getting into mainstream American comic books.

That is all just silly antics to keep does she or does she not know and keeping Lois from being a full partner to Superman just to extend a secret ID plot much longer then it needs to be going on. I think stuff like this does a disservice to the characters, you may as well have memory erasing kisses be the reason Lois can't figure things out. Lois should figure it within a month and Clark should admit and then they work together, none of this silly non sense you mentioned should happen. The stories you are describing make Lois look dopey or crazy and makes Clark look like a pathological liar, its gimmicky writing rather then actual character based writing.

Believing two people are the same because they look similar is taking things at face value.

TBH I never really understood why people see the scene of Lex dismissing the Supes/Clark connection and go "Well the Luthor's just doesn't get it". Get what? Superman's behavior is completely illogical and it's his greatest defense, only in the strange thunderdome that is Clark's noggin does the Clark Kent mild mannered reported/ Superman bold adventurer mashup make sense.

Besides the guy can build replica's of himself down to his powers, he's clearly quite a bit more intelligent than most.

[The Overlord]

Believing two people are the same because they look similar is taking things at face value.

TBH I never really understood why people see the scene of Lex dismissing the Supes/Clark connection and go "Well the Luthor's just doesn't get it". Get what? Superman's behavior is completely illogical and it's his greatest defense, only in the strange thunderdome that is Clark's noggin does the Clark Kent mild mannered reported/ Superman bold adventurer mashup make sense.

Besides the guy can build replica's of himself down to his powers, he's clearly quite a bit more intelligent than most.

But that is just start, they both look the same and frankly there would be some tells that Lois would be able to pick up on, no way could he completely change his body language and there are several other mannerisms that come through, Superman would be giving off tells, without even knowing it. At that point, Superman would have to use mind control to keep his secret safe from Lois.

Lex is high in intelligence, but is low in wisdom, there is a difference between those two concepts. Lex is good at science, but I never seen any real emotional intelligence from him, so I can see Lex dismissing the idea that someone as powerful as Superman disguises as someone as lowly as Clark, due to his own raging ego. Lex would have to temper his ego and gain some emotional intelligence to figure this out. Though if we go with the back story that Lex and Clark grew up in the same town, then it makes Lex look stupid it didn't figure it out.

But you're talking about comics that were published twenty-five or more years ago. You might be right that people today can't get into those comics. A lot of people who buy them now might just be speculators who have no real interest in the stories. So maybe to the 21st century mind of guys in their thirties or forties who buy comics for spectacular images of things blowing up real good, these kind of comics have no interest.

For a comic book or a long running cartoon show to have any consistent narrative voice over twenty years, where the characters never age and the same plots have to be recycled for new audiences, I'm not sure how it's possible to have something written with a consistent authorial perspective. You're kind of attacking the whole medium of super-hero comic books not just Superman.

At different times, comics have been written for different audiences. So yeah, if you took all the Archie comics and read them as though they were CRIME AND PUNISHMENT, you'd say that Dostoevsky really doesn't know how to write a Russian novel when Archie continuously never gets anywhere with Veronica and Betty. And when's he going to murder the pawn-broker?

If you took the comics for each time and place they were written, then I could tell you why certain examples satisfied the readers for which they were intended. One can't suppose that all comics ever written are trying to satisfy the interests of one person living in the 21st century. Why would they?

Fair enough, but I think we have to realize that some aspects of Superman mythology have not aged as well others and maybe some of these dated tropes should be put to rest. Maybe its unfair to criticize something from long ago, but these tropes simply do not stand the test of time and revering them holds comics back, rather then pushes things forward.

Like I said there was a Ms. Marvel issue dealt with the secret ID issue far better then the stuff you mentioned, I think that is what readers want, not kinda outdated tropes that have long since served their purpose. If something like Ms. Marvel can flip the script and tell a new, more modern, refreshing take on the idea of keeping a secret ID from loved ones, why should Superman get buried in outdated tropes? Ms. Marvel is a super hero comic, but its written for today's audience. Super hero comics can evolve with the times, they have to or they die.

I think stuff like this is why people think Superman is outdated, rather then concept being outdated, some of the tropes have become outdated and need to be put to rest to make the character better. Its no wonder the new Superman movies just start with Lois knowing the truth.

[daBronzeBomma]

I think there should be a guideline for the Secret Identity (not just for Supes, but for any character who uses it):

No one can spend considerable time with both of Kal's identities and still not know the Secret.

They either are

A) tight with Clark and either don't know Superman or only know him from brief instances when he saved them

Or

B) tight with Superman and either don't know Clark or don't spend any time talking to him

And in general, the trope of secret identities as pertains to super-heroes has to be largely unknown on any Earth with a Superman. So because Kal doesn't wear a mask, no one thinks he has anything to hide and doesn't go looking for a secret identity in the first place.

So basically, all of Clark co-workers at the Daily Planet don't know or have never met Superman in the flesh. Likewise all of Superman's enemies have no reason to even acknowledge Clark as anyone of importance.

The exceptions to the villains are Darkseid (cosmic awareness) and Mr. Mxyzpltk (nigh-omniscient), but they have their own reasons for not spoiling Superman's little game.

Lois is the big problem here. She can only spend time with Kal in both his identities once she has learned the Secret, but until then, what do you do with her? Have her barely interact with Superman at all but hang with Clark? Or have her barely interact with Clark at all but hang with Superman? She can't be stupid, nor can she be emotionally blinded to both of his identities until the Secret is revealed, so it's tricky ...

[Jim Kelly]

The stories where Clark had to go to elaborate lengths to protect his secret identity were most common in the '50s and '60s. This was a time when comics were judged to be for kids and the Comics Code restricted what kind of plots and situations the comics could present.

The comedy of errors allowed the editors to still present something with dramatic tension. The reader had a vested interest in seeing that the status quo was maintained. Presenting the threat that all these good Superman stories would end if Clark's identity was outed, was like telling kids you were going to eat all their Halloween candy. It induced a nervous anxiety in the reader. So that was a card they could still play--when other subject matter with horror and crime was taken off the table.

A kid bought a comic when he had enough money in his pocket to buy a comic. It was often an impulse item. He could spend a dime on candy or a comic. A clever kid would convince his pal to give up his dime for the comic, while he bought the candy--and then they should share both. To get the kid to buy that comic, it had to have some spectacular and puzzling image on the cover. It really didn't matter how the story explained that cover--it was just important to get the kid so nervous and excited by the cover that he had to surrender his dime to have his curiosity satisfied.

But there is an art to these convoluted plots. I mean people admire the plot for the 1946 Howard Hawk's movie, THE BIG SLEEP. Yet that plot induces an upheaval of confusion. Which just might be why we admire it. Leigh Brackett worked on that sceenplay--the wife of Edmond Hamilton.

I think some of the more bizarre Superman plots create a dizzying exhilaration. Almost the same feeling a kid would get when he spun around and around until the room seemed to be spinning (which is something kids like to do).

[The Overlord]

The stories where Clark had to go to elaborate lengths to protect his secret identity were most common in the '50s and '60s. This was a time when comics were judged to be for kids and the Comics Code restricted what kind of plots and situations the comics could present.

The comedy of errors allowed the editors to still present something with dramatic tension. The reader had a vested interest in seeing that the status quo was maintained. Presenting the threat that all these good Superman stories would end if Clark's identity was outed, was like telling kids you were going to eat all their Halloween candy. It induced a nervous anxiety in the reader. So that was a card they could still play--when other subject matter with horror and crime was taken off the table.

A kid bought a comic when he had enough money in his pocket to buy a comic. It was often an impulse item. He could spend a dime on candy or a comic. A clever kid would convince his pal to give up his dime for the comic, while he bought the candy--and then they should share both. To get the kid to buy that comic, it had to have some spectacular and puzzling image on the cover. It really didn't matter how the story explained that cover--it was just important to get the kid so nervous and excited by the cover that he had to surrender his dime to have his curiosity satisfied.

But there is an art to these convoluted plots. I mean people admire the plot for the 1946 Howard Hawk's movie, THE BIG SLEEP. Yet that plot induces an upheaval of confusion. Which just might be why we admire it. Leigh Brackett worked on that sceenplay--the wife of Edmond Hamilton.

I think some of the more bizarre Superman plots create a dizzying exhilaration. Almost the same feeling a kid would get when he spun around and around until the room seemed to be spinning (which is something kids like to do).

Again I refer to ms. Marvel and handling the same secret ID issue. Ms. Marvel is a comic is aimed at maybe teenagers or pre teens, its not super dark and it doesn't take itself overly seriously either, it features a villain who is a combination of a cockatoo and Thomas Edison, not super serious. But it knows when to pull back and let good character moments speak for themselves.

Superman fighting Brainiac and other over the top villains, going on crazy adventures, over the top stuff happening in super hero career, all of that is great and important o the mythos, but it should never get in the way of actual human character moments, which the secret ID antics did, it made Lois and Clark seem like worse characters, stuff like that makes them go from actual characters to one note archetypes, its not fun when the characters suffer for it. Its story telling of its time, that belongs in the past. Have over the top stuff happen in Superman comics, but never let gimmicky writing overshadow character moments.

[manduck37]

See I think the silly power stunts Superman uses to prove Lois wrong, instead of just coming clean, really comes off as outdated and doesn't stand the test of time. I think modern readers would roll their eyes at such things.

There was a Ms. Marvel issue (the new Ms. Marvel)where: (Don't read if you don't want to read somewhat old spoilers)

Ms. Marvel's mother revealed she knew she was a super hero, right from the beginning and it was touching a scene and it made for a good emotionally impactful story. That is what modern readers want to see, not silly antics with secret IDs and power stunts.

Who are "modern readers"? We're all modern readers here and many of us don't have a problem with the secret identity. Pulling off crazy stunts to keep Superman's secret identity are still done all the time. Modern audiences liked Smallville just fine and he had a secret ID there. In the entire 10 year history of the show, was his secret identity never in jeopardy. Lois and Clark did it. Even Man of Steel did it with Lois literally going to the ends of the earth to figure out who Superman is. Some people may not care for it sure. Though plenty of new readers and movie goers like it just fine and don't consider it outdated.

Ms. Marvel is one example in a vacuum. It may make for an emotional moment in her story. That doesn't mean that characters with secret IDs can't have emotional moments. That includes emotional moments tied to keeping their secret. How many time did Matt Murdock or Peter Parker struggle with keeping their secret and the ways it hurt their family? Dare Devil recently had his secret identity restored after being exposed and his book gets all kinds of praise.

[The Overlord]

Who are "modern readers"? We're all modern readers here and many of us don't have a problem with the secret identity. Pulling off crazy stunts to keep Superman's secret identity are still done all the time. Modern audiences liked Smallville just fine and he had a secret ID there. In the entire 10 year history of the show, was his secret identity never in jeopardy. Lois and Clark did it. Even Man of Steel did it with Lois literally going to the ends of the earth to figure out who Superman is. Some people may not care for it sure. Though plenty of new readers and movie goers like it just fine and don't consider it outdated.

Ms. Marvel is one example in a vacuum. It may make for an emotional moment in her story. That doesn't mean that characters with secret IDs can't have emotional moments. That includes emotional moments tied to keeping their secret. How many time did Matt Murdock or Peter Parker struggle with keeping their secret and the ways it hurt their family? Dare Devil recently had his secret identity restored after being exposed and his book gets all kinds of praise.

I think Smallville sucked, so that is not a big argument for me. Man of Steel has Lois knowing almost right away, so that supports my argument. SNL mocked the idea of Lois from 'Lois and Clark' not figuring out who Superman was right away, this has become a punchline 20 years ago.

Also most fans felt the story that restored Spidey's ID was hot garbage, so yeah Spidey's current secret ID stories are based in one of the worst Spidey plot developments ever.

Plus MJ knew Spidey's secret from day one apparently, did that ruin Spidey? Foggy has known DD's ID for a long time, did that ruin the character?

Again I am not saying a super hero shouldn't have an ID, I am just saying some people would figure it really quickly. If Jim Gordon met Batgirl, he should know its his daughter, you are turning him into a moron otherwise. Lois Lane figuring out Superman is Clark, shouldn't happen as fast, but really she is a smart, skeptical, observant reporter, who spends a lot of time with both Clark and Superman. That's all I am saying, Lois should figure it right away, someone like Jimmy can stay in the dark. Superman still has an ID if Lois figures it out. Why should Lois be made into a idiot for the sake of Clark's ID?

One or two people figuring out a hero's ID is not the end of the world and they can still hide their ID from others. Frankly it makes it easier for some of these guys to have someone in on their secret, who can cover for them and Lois works well in that role with Clark, IMO. Superman is romantically interested in Lois and relationships are based on honesty and trust, having him lie to her all the time and try to discredit her, makes him look a jerk.

[superduperman]

What issue is this? I wonder if they ever referenced it again.

[Alan2099]

Let me ask you something, if you had a good friend and one day he tried to fool you into changing his look, attitude and posture, would you fall for it or would you know right away? I don't care how much Clark thinks he is changing his body language, but its extremely hard to change body language so completely that it is completely different, there are subconscious tells that people would give off with their body language without even knowing it and other people can pick up on them.

There are people I have worked with for years, who have came up to me outside work and I didn't immediatly recognize them without their uniform. Likewise, people getting a new haircut can throw you if that how you're used to identifying them.

Now let's say, you work with somebody, but you don't pay that much attention to them. You work with them a bit, but they're kinda schmucks. They're just kind of boring and unmemorable at best.

Then somewhere else out side of work, you see the same guy, except he's dressed differently, has a different hair style, talks with a different accent, and is doing them extraordinarily awesome things. Then on top of that, you ask them if they're the same person and they say no. Now why would you think there were the same? Just because they look somewhat similar?

Supposedly Hugh Jackman once went to comiccon dressed as Wolverine and nobody noticed him.

Dolly Parton once lost a Dolly Parton look alike contest.

Just because you look like something doesn't mean much.

[Carabas]

See I think the silly power stunts Superman uses to prove Lois wrong, instead of just coming clean, really comes off as outdated and doesn't stand the test of time. I think modern readers would roll their eyes at such things.

They were probably outdated when they were published.

[Flash Gordon]

See I think the silly power stunts Superman uses to prove Lois wrong, instead of just coming clean, really comes off as outdated and doesn't stand the test of time. I think modern readers would roll their eyes at such things.

There was a Ms. Marvel issue (the new Ms. Marvel)where: (Don't read if you don't want to read somewhat old spoilers)

Ms. Marvel's mother revealed she knew she was a super hero, right from the beginning and it was touching a scene and it made for a good emotionally impactful story. That is what modern readers want to see, not silly antics with secret IDs and power stunts.

I am a "modern reader", and I think it's ludicrous to overthink the Clark Kent secret ID. It works because it works. He's hiding in plain sight. Nobody would suspect Superman would hide himself behind someone anyway. Here in New York, I can probably pass by Brad Pitt and not even notice. He isn't on the screen, he's a guy in a crowd. That sort of thing.

I love Ms. Marvel but I didn't like her family finding out. I felt it robbed the stories of too much rich drama, too quickly. Part of the fun is in the eleborate identities these characters have.

Granted I have my own ideas for how to make "Clark Kent" more of a name and a byline. An idea of a man. Don Draper without the sex and booze.

[Jim Kelly]

What issue is this? I wonder if they ever referenced it again.

This was in SUPERMAN No. 330 (December '78), written by Pesky Marty Pasko, from an idea by favourite letterhack Al Schroeder. Soon after this came out, in THE COMIC READER, there was a comment on it from E. Nelson Bridwell where he pretty much dismissed the whole thing as a lapse in judgement.

Once you start to think about it, there are several reasons why it makes no sense in continuity. But the story brought back the Spellbinder--fitting in with the whole Mentalist bent of the plot--so I kind of like it, even though I don't take it seriously.

My feeling about the secred i.d. is that it should never be addressed in story. There were plenty of men and women in the 1930s and 1940s that dressed up in halloween outfits and fought crime, without bothering to wear a mask--and nobody recognized them. And as long as it's never pointed out in the story--as a reader you can just assume that they look different to the people in that reality. Simple as that. Once it's lampshaded in the story, then it becomes a bone of contention. To mix metaphors.

But as I pointed out above, it was something that the editors could exploit for plots. So I can see why once they saw the opportunity, they kept going back to that well.