Superman's cover-up crisis

[AvengingJustice]

Here's a question that I've been thinking a lot for a while and I was hoping you guys could give your thoughts on: Is Clark Kent the cover-up for Superman or is Superman the cover-up for Clark Kent?

[Francisco]

Clark and Superman are 2 sides of a same coin. Both sides help people and both sides try to make the world a better place. Clark allows Superman to live a normal life and to speak about issues Superman can not speak while Superman allows Clark to use his powers more directly.

[AvengingJustice]

Um..........the hell?

Sir, you might not realize this, but this is a forum talking about Superman. Not a place to do all kinds of spamming.

[MajorHoy]

Depends on who the writer is.

[Mat001]

It's a spam bot. Happens all the time.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

It's a spam bot. Happens all the time.

Is there anything internet can't do?

I can live with the "two sides of the same coin" POV. I think Jim Lee said something like that when asked about it during NYCC, and it makes sense. But in the end, he will always be Kal-El.

[Darkspellmaster]

Is there anything internet can't do?

I can live with the "two sides of the same coin" POV. I think Jim Lee said something like that when asked about it during NYCC, and it makes sense. But in the end, he will always be Kal-El.

Well that kind of depends. Yes his name is Kal-El, but he was raised a Clark Kent. So to me while they are both sides of the same coin, Clark I belive is more the actual person and Superman is just sort of the "Heroic" image that he feels he needs to present.

[stk]

It's been portrayed both ways (and almost every spot between) at various points in history.

With the original Siegel/Shuster character, Superman was the true personality, and Clark Kent -- although the name he was raised with -- was a disguise. That conceit kind of carried through until the Bronze Age.

In the Bronze Age, Pasko put forward the idea that the character's true personality was kind of a middle spot incorporating both sides. Although it should be mentioned that Pasko's interpretation didn't seem to be fully embraced by the other Bronze Age writers.

After CoIE, Byrne introduced a character for whom Clark was the real personality and Superman was the disguise, which carried forward the next few decades until maybe the Johns run, at which point it seemed like a return to the Pasko idea of both Superman and the public Clark being a bit of a disguise, and the real person being somewhere in the middle.

[Van Cleaf]

Until 1986, the reboot, the phrase "Superman Who Disguised As Clark Kent..." was pretty much the real deal. In the Silver Age he even started to feel like a Kryptonian. Perhaps a little bit silly but it still added a nice melancholy to the character. In the Bronze Age they often hinted that Clark Kent was something more than just a disguise and took on a life of his own which even Superman didn't understand.

There have been many revisionists that claimed that Byrne's take brought Superman back to the roots but of course this is just wrong.

Since a few years they leave it more ambiguous with the "both two sides of the same coin" / "neither one of them is the real deal" and so... which I personally find a little bit lame.

[dupersuper]

Until 1986, the reboot, the phrase "Superman Who Disguised As Clark Kent..." was pretty much the real deal. In the Silver Age he even started to feel like a Kryptonian. Perhaps a little bit silly but it still added a nice melancholy to the character. In the Bronze Age they often hinted that Clark Kent was something more than just a disguise and took on a life of his own which even Superman didn't understand.

There have been many revisionists that claimed that Byrne's take brought Superman back to the roots but of course this is just wrong.

Since a few years they leave it more ambiguous with the "both two sides of the same coin" / "neither one of them is the real deal" and so... which I personally find a little bit lame.

You say lame I say logical. The real guy is Clark when he's on the farm or (back when they were married) with Lois. Kal el is his regal, slightly cold alien heritage, reporter Clark is his slightly awkward business suit wearer, Superman is his uber confident, sure of himself side, but they're all just the faces Clark - like all of us - shows in different situations.

[stk]

You say lame I say logical. The real guy is Clark when he's on the farm or (back when they were married) with Lois. Kal el is his regal, slightly cold alien heritage, reporter Clark is his slightly awkward business suit wearer, Superman is his uber confident, sure of himself side, but they're all just the faces Clark - like all of us - shows in different situations.

Unless he thinks of himself as Kal. And this "slightly cold" BS comes from your post-Crisis bias. Because the pre-Crisis Kryptonians weren't cold.

Pre-Crisis, particularly in the Golden and Silver Ages, Superman was his real personality, when he felt most natural, when he was hanging out with friends, etc. It wasn't him acting extra-confident or whatever. It was him free to be himself. Clark was an act he put on so no one at the Daily Planet would guess it was him. But even as Clark at the Planet, all his thought balloons were in Superman's voice.

[KurtW95]

I'd go with the "two sides of the same coin" thing. But if I had to choose, I'd say that Clark is the slightly more dominant personality. He grew up as Clark, not Superman. Also, I feel that he is more connected to humanity than to Kryptonians. Hence, Superman, not Superalien.

[stk]

I'd go with the "two sides of the same coin" thing. But if I had to choose, I'd say that Clark is the slightly more dominant personality. He grew up as Clark, not Superman.

Post-Crisis, yeah. But in the Silver and Bronze Ages, he grew up as both about equally. He grew up knowing and embracing his Kryptonian heritage, he grew up with memories of his first years on Krypton, he grew up with a great number of aliens from numerous worlds as best friends from whom he had no secrets and who knew him only as Superboy, not as Clark. So, again... it depends.

[Van Cleaf]

You say lame I say logical. The real guy is Clark when he's on the farm or (back when they were married) with Lois. Kal el is his regal, slightly cold alien heritage, reporter Clark is his slightly awkward business suit wearer, Superman is his uber confident, sure of himself side, but they're all just the faces Clark - like all of us - shows in different situations.

Well, "logical"... he's an alien from another planet who does things that aren't even remotely possible... It isn't really that illogical to assume that Superman, whose brain is probably equally advanced, simply has problems to really be Clark Kent and rather has to start acting like he is. Just his whole nature might be different. Just like a human being cannot really become an ape.

You could also say it's illogical to assume that someone as powerful as Superman can really be normal.

Of course, the idea that he really is Clark Kent is also possible but stop pretending this is the only way it can be.

I prefer the "Clark-The-Disguise" take because it's in line with the creators' intentions and is much more interesting to me.

[Kizmet]

Depends on who the writer is.

Certainly, but I tend to prefer Clark as the real person and Superman as a heroic ideal he came up with once he got to Metropolis.

When it comes to Nature vs Nuture, I believe how you're raised has more impact than genetics when it comes to personality. My introduction to Superman was at a point when Ma and Pa Kent were clearly Clark's childhood influences. That's why an alien generally embodies American Heartland morality; regardless of where he was born, that's where he was raised.