Controversial Superman Opinions

[Ascended]

Ascended, you and I have talked about this before so this won't be new to you, but I still see the "Clark is who I am" as a starting point of his progression. Eventually, his thinking is broader than that - especially when the Fortress comes into play and he is around more tangible Kryptonian things. It would seem more real. He'll almost always be "Clark" in his head, but not in the same way in the 90's as he was in the 80's, if that makes any sense. That way, you can have the big adventures *and* the small ones, and they all fit.

Yeah, you're more of a post-Crisis guy than I am. But it's cool my friend, I don't hold it against you.

(JK. I think our opinions actually align quite a bit even if we come at them from slightly different angles)

I think what you say works for that specific Byrne version of Clark, who didn't have powers as a child (except when he did via retcon or writing slip) and thought he was a regular farmboy until high school. Makes perfect sense for that guy.

But for most versions, who had abilities from the start? I think the psychological duality begins to develop as soon as little Clark realizes he can do things other can't, and that it scares them when he does stuff like describe colors they can't see or warns them about the tumor in their lungs they didn't know they had. Any version of Clark who was always different and odd and could see and do things nobody else could has to keep a huge chunk of himself compartmentalized. That's his "normal" operating procedure; to live two lives, and it's the beginning of the "Clark/Superman" duality.

And in that way it's not so different from how you acted differently at school than when you were home, and that continued as you grew up and entered the workforce. Same concept, just cranked up to 11.

So I figure there's always been a difference between "Clark" and "Superman," even before anyone called him Superman, before Clark ever needed two names. The side of himself that we generally recognize as "Clark" is the half of himself that he shows the world, hedged in by the need to keep his other half secret. There's truth to that guy; he *is* shy and quiet and socially awkward. The side of himself we generally recognize as "Superman" spent the first half of his life hiding, hedged in by the need to let his other half live a normal, real life. There's truth to that guy too; he *is* confident and goal-oriented and wise. When Clark put on a cape and went public, that hidden side of his life finally found an outlet, and certainly the dynamic between "Clark" and "Superman" shifted, but I think the tension, the duality, was always there.

For any version that *didn't* grow up like a normal kid, anyway.

And of course Clark thinks of himself as "Clark" since that's the name he's known the longest. But whatever he calls himself in his own head, he's still psychologically split in a way that's oddly relatable, but utterly whimsical....and if you look too deep, maybe just a little crazy.

[JAK]

Yeah, you're more of a post-Crisis guy than I am. But it's cool my friend, I don't hold it against you.

LOL!

(JK. I think our opinions actually align quite a bit even if we come at them from slightly different angles)

Agreed!

I think what you say works for that specific Byrne version of Clark, who didn't have powers as a child (except when he did via retcon or writing slip) and thought he was a regular farmboy until high school. Makes perfect sense for that guy.

But for most versions, who had abilities from the start? I think the psychological duality begins to develop as soon as little Clark realizes he can do things other can't, and that it scares them when he does stuff like describe colors they can't see or warns them about the tumor in their lungs they didn't know they had. Any version of Clark who was always different and odd and could see and do things nobody else could has to keep a huge chunk of himself compartmentalized. That's his "normal" operating procedure; to live two lives, and it's the beginning of the "Clark/Superman" duality.

And in that way it's not so different from how you acted differently at school than when you were home, and that continued as you grew up and entered the workforce. Same concept, just cranked up to 11.

Oh, definitely - all of that starts much younger in almost every other version of Clark. There would be a greater sense of longing in his connection to Krypton when he finds out his origins, and that's even for the ones where he doesn't remember Krypton at all. I mainly said the other just because Post-Crisis tends to get distilled down to that one quote, and it's not really a full picture.

So I figure there's always been a difference between "Clark" and "Superman," even before anyone called him Superman, before Clark ever needed two names. The side of himself that we generally recognize as "Clark" is the half of himself that he shows the world, hedged in by the need to keep his other half secret. There's truth to that guy; he *is* shy and quiet and socially awkward. The side of himself we generally recognize as "Superman" spent the first half of his life hiding, hedged in by the need to let his other half live a normal, real life. There's truth to that guy too; he *is* confident and goal-oriented and wise. When Clark put on a cape and went public, that hidden side of his life finally found an outlet, and certainly the dynamic between "Clark" and "Superman" shifted, but I think the tension, the duality, was always there.

Perfectly said.

For any version that *didn't* grow up like a normal kid, anyway.

True. I mean, P-CS didn't quite grow up "normal", either, but most things weren't at a level to really start questioning things to the same degree.

And of course Clark thinks of himself as "Clark" since that's the name he's known the longest. But whatever he calls himself in his own head, he's still psychologically split in a way that's oddly relatable, but utterly whimsical....and if you look too deep, maybe just a little crazy.

lol - Also true. And, imo at least, they all get there eventually - but, like you said, from slightly different angles.

[Ascended]

Oh, definitely - all of that starts much younger in almost every other version of Clark. There would be a greater sense of longing in his connection to Krypton when he finds out his origins, and that's even for the ones where he doesn't remember Krypton at all. I mainly said the other just because Post-Crisis tends to get distilled down to that one quote, and it's not really a full picture.

It's true. Aside from some Byrne panels, even post-Crisis didn't go as far in on "Clark is who I am" as we fans sometimes pretend. Even in the triangle era, Clark had a healthy enough respect and interest in his heritage. But it's eighty years of history and thousands of issues, having a conversation at all practically demands we simplify things sometimes I guess.

There's a scene after the Doomsday fight, and Clark's dead, and there's this weird funeral procession for him that's half Kryptonian and half christian. The demon Blaze pulls the images from his mind to create a "perfect afterlife" illusion and lure him into hell. At least, I'm pretty sure she pulled the images from his mind. Which tells us that even that soon after post-Crisis began (what, six years or so?) Clark had already internalized and recognized his Kryptonian side.

Yeah, they all get there eventually.

[JAK]

It's true. Aside from some Byrne panels, even post-Crisis didn't go as far in on "Clark is who I am" as we fans sometimes pretend. Even in the triangle era, Clark had a healthy enough respect and interest in his heritage. But it's eighty years of history and thousands of issues, having a conversation at all practically demands we simplify things sometimes I guess.

Possibly, yeah. It just seems like quoting from the first act of a movie, though I get it. It's such an "authoritative" statement that it sticks for people. Doesn't hurt that the artwork is great in that panel, too...lol - I just always have to be the "well, actually" nerd guy. lol

There's a scene after the Doomsday fight, and Clark's dead, and there's this weird funeral procession for him that's half Kryptonian and half christian. The demon Blaze pulls the images from his mind to create a "perfect afterlife" illusion and lure him into hell. At least, I'm pretty sure she pulled the images from his mind. Which tells us that even that soon after post-Crisis began (what, six years or so?) Clark had already internalized and recognized his Kryptonian side.

Yeah, they all get there eventually.

You know... that's a really good point about the afterlife visions! And yes - after he got back from Exile, he'd grown a LOT from a character perspective, and would keep doing so. From "Eradication" onward, a lot of his Kryptonian side would come into play, and that would naturally have an effect.

[manwhohaseverything]

"only two types of people survive the battlefield:the strong and the cowardly"

The glasses guy isn't just shy,quiet and awkward..He has negative traits.The guy is undiciplined,selfish,cowardly..etc.His pen or sword wreaks of fear.He refuses to actually go for the gal he loves and open up.He blames the world when the choice was his and simple.He need only be brave.he does become more.

While superman's negative traits are recklessness,certain inability to connect with people as he is, stubborness and cockyness..etc."needn't be afraid of me" to lois still the best romantic moment in superman history for me.

[Stanlos]

On the Clark Superman dichotomy, do those proponents of Superman first see him spending the vast majority of his time as Supes and little to no Clark? Like just enough to sell that Clark writes and such?

[manwhohaseverything]

Clark paling around with jimmy or bibbo..clark being journalist and investigating stuff is great.But,making the soap opera-ish drama front and center is spiderman,not superman..Action,sci fi and adventure should be front and center..
If superman doesn't punch good.then he is basically useless.

[JAK]

"only two types of people survive the battlefield:the strong and the cowardly"

The glasses guy isn't just shy,quiet and awkward..He has negative traits.The guy is undiciplined,selfish,cowardly..etc.His pen or sword wreaks of fear.He refuses to actually go for the gal he loves and open up.He blames the world when the choice was his and simple.He need only be brave.he does become more.

While superman's negative traits are recklessness,certain inability to connect with people as he is, stubborness and cockyness..etc."needn't be afraid of me" to lois still the best romantic moment in superman history for me.

That strikes me as a very Golden and Silver-Age description of Clark and Superman. And that works fine. But the Triangle-Era's Clark is the one who won over Lois in the end, not Superman. I tend to prefer that for Lois on a character level, but as I said: both can work just fine. Just wanted to mention the variation.

On the Clark Superman dichotomy, do those proponents of Superman first see him spending the vast majority of his time as Supes and little to no Clark? Like just enough to sell that Clark writes and such?

That will be different for each person, but there's certainly a case to be made for the lonliness of having to hide who you truly are having wide-reaching parallels that span generations. I do know that's a big draw for many, with the payoff that the self you have to hide is the most powerful being in the universe. It is the Superman name on the cover, after all. Even if I prefer the reverse in general, I can see the appeal.

[Jim Kelly]

When SEINFELD started to gain a following in the early seasons, some people thought Jerry and Elaine had the ideal relationship. They were held up as the model for romantic couples. Of course, those people got it wrong. It was never going to work out between Jerry and Elaine--they each had such absurd idiosyncrasies, they couldn't be tied down to each other. Better they should pursue failed relationships with others for our entertainment.

The Man of Tomorrow has gone in the opposite direction. In the early days, Superman/Lois/Clark was a dysfunctional romance. It could never work out between them. Oh sure, there was that unpublished K-Metal story and a period in the comic strip, where Lois and Clark were married, but in the majority of comic books there was never any hope for them to get together and live happily ever after.

Most imaginary stories, dreams and hoaxes suggested that if they ever did wed for real it would be a disaster. The people making the comics knew that they got more mileage out of keeping the couple apart.

A call for comics to get serious in the 1970s made Lois Lane less crazy and Clark more romantic. With the Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder pairing, some thought it would be better if the couple could get together in the end. The public now saw Superman as a love story, where Clark Kent and Lois Lane are destined to be together.

I find that boring, for the most part.

It's not impossible to write good stories about married couples. I like Ralph Dibny and Sue Dearbon Dibny, Adam Strange and Alanna of Rann, Barry Allen and Iris West Allen, Katar Hol and Shayera Thal. But the writers never had to change those character to make them work as a married couple.

Making Superman into the love story of two soulmates finding each other changes the Last Son of Krypton's adventures. Too much of the absurd and the fantastic is taken away from both their personalities to make them fit together. I never got into the Man of Steel to read about Clark Kent and Lois Lane living together in romantic bliss.

[Ascended]

On the Clark Superman dichotomy, do those proponents of Superman first see him spending the vast majority of his time as Supes and little to no Clark? Like just enough to sell that Clark writes and such?

Well I'm not exactly a "Superman first" guy. I'm a "Both equally" guy. I think both sides of his life need proper focus for the character to work at his best. So maybe my answer isn't what you're looking for. But I pretty much come down on the idea that "Clark/Superman" isn't a binary; it's a spectrum. Sometimes Clark's more "Superman" than anything, sometimes more "Clark," depending on where he's at in his life.

I figure, setting aside the specifics of any given version.....

When Clark first gets to Metropolis, he's "Clark" just enough to pull the disguise off. He shows up at work *most* of the time, but rarely, if ever, spends time with anyone outside the office. No real effort to make friends, no after-work drinks for Mr. Kent with the other desk jockeys. He's so quiet and awkward he doesn't get invited anyway, but he's too busy to notice that; right after arriving in the city and going public as Superman? For the first time ever, Clark is able to let that hidden, secret side of himself out and he revels in it. He's acting as Superman as much as he can without *completely* unraveling Clark's life.

Then he starts making friends. Jim, Lois, even Perry in a "workplace mentor" kind of way. And "Clark" starts to take some time back for himself. Starts hanging out with people again, opening himself up, getting to know his co-workers and the people of Metropolis. There's still a lot of walls that he keeps up to protect "Superman" but he's starting to find a balance in his new, internal dynamic. He and Lois start to get closer.

Maybe as he and Lois get more serious and his friendships with other people deepen, the "Superman" side starts getting a little less attention. Clark's going to dinner with Lois more, grabbing beers with Jim after work more, and saving cats in trees less. He's happy. Feeling guilty about taking so much personal time and it's eating at him, but selfishly happy. Then he tells Lois who he is. And she gets it. She understands his need for that duality, and she doesn't hold one side against the other. Maybe she's the first/only girl to do so. And that helps Clark find the balance within himself again and put "Superman" back to work full-time, and her help at the Planet allows "Clark" to reach his potential as a journalist.

And if you squint, this kinda-sorta follows the rough path of the publication history. In a very generalized, vague way. "Clark" is in large part a disguise through the Golden Age and up into the Silver. Then when the Lois romance starts to be treated more seriously (getting into late Silver, Bronze Age and post-Crisis) "Clark" gets more consideration and time and "Superman" starts staying on earth more.

Now with his identity open and a kid to worry about, that inner dynamic has to shift again. Clark has to ask himself, without the need to keep half his life hidden, how does he move through the world? How do his two sides interact, without that need for secrecy? I think Bendis did a good job of taking Clark public in a way that felt honest, and dealing with the fallout from the people around him, and I think PKJ has done a great job with Clark's voice....but so far, nobody has really tackled the psychological impact of this latest change in his life.

[Johnny Thunders!]

For me, I am Clark Kent, I know what that’s like, it’s Superman’s life that makes me interested.

[Johnny Thunders!]

My question is would you read just a Clark Kent Lois book? Regular people living regular lives.

[NaVi]

I like that he sees himself as Clark first, but if it's something real, not just talk, to say that he feels like Clark but that 99% of the stories focus on Superman or what Superman means, is what we have had for many years, pure talk. ideally, Jon would be the Superman of the earth and Clark the Superman of the Universe, when Clark is on Earth he is Clark.

[Jon Clark]

To me it comes down to your view of the character as a whole.
Byrne's take starts with the main character slowly becoming aware of his abilities. Even in the Triangle years we had mentions of a broken arm as a child. I can see this guy growing up thinking of himself as Clark Kent and his powers just being an extra layer.

The version I grew up with was almost fully powered as soon as the rocket landed. He grew up always having to be less than his full potential around everyone but Jonathan and Martha. By age 8 he was already maintaining two lives. It makes sense that this guy thinks of Clark as a role more than his true self. Superboy/man only has to keep a few specific Clark details hidden. Clark has to hide his physical abilities, his normal reactions to danger, his most interesting experiences ...

I prefer the character to think of himself as more than a farmboy with some special abilities. VMMV

[Jon Clark]

My question is would you read just a Clark Kent Lois book? Regular people living regular lives.

I could enjoy something like the old Private Life of Clark Kent where we see Lois and Clark dealing with things without costumes and superhuman opponents. But I wouldn't be down for a Clark who didn't have powers but was just a fully human reporter.