Superman feigns timidity, cowardice and uncertainty as Kent in a emotional disguise that’s doubly necessary because his physical disguise is so slight. So Kent is, in a way, the repository for Superman’s human failings.
There’s a deeper psychological resonance in Kent as well. He’s the Everyman in Superman. He’s us.
The fact that nobody knew who Clark Kent really was — particularly those closest to him — added greatly to the fantasy kick of the character.
Adults often feel that they are underrated and unappreciated by those around them, and children — still uncertain about their own identity — experience that feeling even more intensely. Clark Kent was our revenge and our redemption. If they only knew…
Of course, the fantasy of being the Special One has its downside — it’s inherently narcissistic, after all. But it can also provide an emotional compensation in a harsh and/or indifferent world. Somewhere beneath every superhero story we’ll find an underlying premise — the reassuring idea that one person can make a difference.
“The truth may be that Kent existed not for the purposes of the story but for the reader,” wrote cartoonist Jules Feiffer in The Great Comic Book Heroes, his seminal hardcover retrospective on superheroes published in 1965.
“His fake identity was our real one. That’s why we loved him so. For if that wasn’t really us, if there were no Clark Kents, only lots of glasses and cheap suits which, when removed, revealed all of us in our true identities — what a hell of an improved world it would have been!”
Bob Doncaster said: Learning not to use your natural super powers in certain situations would probably be very hard. Basic instincts of human behavior that come without thinking
ReplyDeleteMichal Jacot wrote: Excellent analysis. I admit I've used the old "why doesn't Superman's friends recognize him when he wears glasses" trope (mostly because it's always good for a cheap laugh). But the bigger picture is that it IS a fantasy world and we should remember that (as Paula Tauber says above) it's just a comic book. Nobody thinks twice about how, in the movies, we can override and disable an alien spaceship's computer system with one guy's laptop, or how Indiana Jones does -- well, most of the things he does. We just accept it as a fantasy world, sit back and enjoy the show. Well put, sir.
ReplyDeletePat McDonald said: Basically Superman had to be an actor as Kent, even though he was raised by his parents as Clark. Maybe he had to act the Superman role? Terrific essay!
ReplyDeleteMark Emery said: Very good points! Makes one think of Clark Kent in a whole different light...
ReplyDeleteMark Engblom wrote: A wonderful and quite moving analysis, Dan! Clark WAS very much our “access point” to Superman in a way the other secret identities of millionaire playboys, test pilots and archeologists never could.
ReplyDeleteWith decades of reading and collecting Superman comics under my belt, I would also say that Clark Kent (both the adopted son of the Kents as well as the buffoonish façade) was an absolute psychological *necessity* for Kal-El of Krypton. With literally the power of the gods, it would be easy for Kal-El to not only grow to hate fragile humanity but to rule and terrorize them as well. However, his life as Clark gives him the constant reminder of a human perspective and a “relearning” of the humility Ma and Pa Kent wisely instilled in him. His daily pretense of not only pretending to be an average man, but LESS than an average man psychologically helped him in ways that even HE may not have been fully aware of. What was ostensibly (according to him) a way to work at a newspaper to better learn about where his power and attention were needed, was in truth a vital psychological lifeline to tether him to a humanity it would’ve been all too easy for him to resent, rule, or abandon altogether.
Rob Schmidt said: On the one hand, everyman Clark Kent is arguably a necessary part of the mythos. I'm not sure Superman would've succeeded without him.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the simple non-disguise (glasses) set up innumerable stories of Lois and others trying to prove Clark was Superman. Few adults took comics seriously as long as this was the norm.
Gene Popa wrote: I"m one of those people who believe that Superman isn't the real core identity, but rather Clark Kent is. He may have been born Kal-El on Krypton, but he was raised as Clark, learned his values from the Kents, made lasting friendships in Smallville. In his own inner thoughts, I think he considers himself to be Clark, not Kal-El.
ReplyDeletePhilip Sithi-Amnuai said: Exactly! And this is part of the appeal of Superman. He's Clark ( which is us) but secretly he is a really great guy and that girl we like if she only knew...
ReplyDeleteRay Cuthbert wrote: I believe that aspects of both Superman & Clark are the core identities and that Kal-El is an inheritance. Many aspects of Clark are faked - the meek, mild personality and the clumsiness are all artificial. However the values of the person came from both the Kents and from his own inner decency. Being Superman is much more the natural self, but again - informed by the Kents. Neither persona is the whole person.
ReplyDeleteRobert S. Childers said: It's interesting to note that Clark as portrayed on The Adventures of Superman radio show was much less the meek and timid type. He comes off as sharp and clever, but clearly an ordinary person; his conflicts with Lois are generally over his scooping her, rather than her disgust at his retiring personality. This is not to say I prefer one portrayal over the other necessarily, only that it's an interesting difference. I agree with Ray Cuthbert above that neither Clark nor Superman are a front, but simply different sides to his personality. Clark is Superman in ordinary circumstances, while Superman is Clark in crisis.
ReplyDeleteMark Ellis said: One reason I always loved Superman was the fact he was basically Clark in a cape...he respected his Kryptonian heritage, but his heart was always in Smallville.
ReplyDeleteMichael Fraley said: I also like the idea of the nebbish immigrant (Kent) who doesn't so much blend into the American landscape as he does rise above it as Superman.
ReplyDeleteBob Buethe wrote: This was a wonderful analysis. Someone really gets what Superman is about. "Somewhere beneath every superhero story we’ll find an underlying premise — the reassuring idea that one person can make a difference."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. And yet, today -- particularly in the TV and movie universes -- it seems that a hero has to be part of a team, or have a support team, in order to be effective. Is this a cultural change in the way we regard heroism or vigilantism? Personally, I find a solo hero with a secret identity to be more fun and interesting.
Robert S.Childers wrote: Henry Cavil told an amusing story of walking around New York for a day dressed as Clark Kent--clothes a size too big, glasses, hair styled differently. He said no one looked at him twice. Brad Pitt apparently goes home to Springfield, MO, where he grew up, a couple times a year, and he manages to get in and out unobserved by doing essentially the same thing.
ReplyDeleteMelody Ivins said: Gotta love Clark in a fur romper, toting a club, and wearing glasses -- and Lois, with a nice perm, spying on him.
ReplyDeleteCraig Gillette:
ReplyDeleteAs Billy Joel would say, did you ever let your lover see the stranger deep inside.
Bill Scott:
ReplyDeleteHaving seen Christopher Reeves transform from Clark to Kal-El within a scene with no change of clothes involved I think it is possible to believe that folk might notice a superficial resemblance between the two but dismiss the idea that Clark could be Superman. In addition to that in the early days Superman had the ability to mold his features (he retained similar abilities like super-ventriloquism). What if the Silver and Bronze Age Superman retained that ability but in a more subtle, perhaps even subconscious way? Thus Clark might have a weaker chin, more sunken cheekbones, bags under the eyes that he drops when he transforms to Superman. Thus Clark might pass as a near lookalike but never be suspected - except by Lois who notices his convenient disappearances - of really being Superman. It's a better explanation than super-hypnotism at least!
I replied:
I've wondered about that too. And I once interviewed Dick Giordano, who said the first time he ever beleived that disguise was possible was when he saw Chris Reeve do it. The radio show had a unique solution in the early years — Clark did all the investigating, and Superman acted only in secret and was rarely seen by anyone.
Foster H. Coker III:
ReplyDeleteWow, that's a great piece, Dan.
Alex M. Wainer Jr.:
ReplyDeleteIn the Bruce Timm Superman animated series, Clark says he’d go crazy if he had to be Superman all the time. Bring Clark, er, grounds him.
JD Rummel:
ReplyDeleteLoved this piece. Thanks for posting.
ReplyDeleteRichard Meyer:
Every time I see a partial story like this page, I want to know how Clark got out of this one!
There was an interesting imaginary story about his identity being revealed and unable to construct a new one, he’s consigned to a lonely life in the Fortress of Solitude.
Still, I prefer my memory of George Reeves’ Clark as a dignified man and respected crime reporter, not the comics version. I haven’t read any new ones for many years, but I would be surprised if he’s still portrayed as timid.
Philip Portelli:
ReplyDeleteI always believed that Superman likes being Clark, interacting with regular people, seeing their joys and helping with their misfortunes. A secret Guardian Angel if you will.
I don't know how much downtime Superman has as Clark but I'm sure he enjoys it!
I replied:
On reflection, I think the Clark is a person and Superman is a role, the role of rescuer.
Paul Zuckerman:
ReplyDeleteDan, I think you put your finger on the essential purpose of Clark's character and his role both for the reader and for the character. I think DC has gone astray in virtually eliminating Clark, and, at one point, even revealing his identity to the world. Happily, that was undone in the way that only comics can do, without regard for logic, ethics or sense, but there it is.
I remember reading that essay by Feiffer when I was 13 and perhaps at the time it was a radical thought, but he was right. The wish-fulfillment aspect of Clark/Superman was definitely at the core of the appeal for the character especially for anyone who was not the most popular kid in the school. How many times did any of us think "if they only knew!" who we really were-but, of course, we don't hide a real cape and super powers under our glasses. In much the same way, the early Spider-Man played to the exact same feelings. It was deemed to be new and refreshing at the time, but it was territory that Superman, and especially Superboy in the late 50s and early 60s, had trod but no one seems to give them credit for that anymore.
Jerry Siegel, either on a conscious or subconscious level, understood that and probably felt that he hid his true self under his glasses. I wish someone would write a biography of him and his relationship to his most important character over the decades.
I replied:
You have nailed it as usual. I'd be particularly interested in the hell Siegel put Superman through after he lost control of the character, while its continuing success was essentially mocking him. And DC eliminates Clark at their peril. He is an ESSENTIAL part of Superman's appeal.
Ben Mccoy:
ReplyDeleteMOST EXCELLENT ESSAY ON KENT. THIS ONE GOES ON THE DAILY PLANET'S FRONT PAGE.
Mike Woolson:
ReplyDeleteI'm endlessly fascinated with how Mort Weisinger's Superman comics focus on things like fearing the woman who loves you will find out about your secret life, having your friends and family cast you out and becoming physically unattractive. And how often hitting things in anger is shown as an appropriate response.
I've read that he was a difficult person to deal with, these obsessions seem to reflect some deep personal insecurities.