We spent a good deal of time in class discussing the unique place that Clark Kent occupies in comics. As Bill astutely observes near the end of Kill Bill, Superman is not like other superheroes in that he did not 'become' a superhero by crafting a costumed alter-ego. Rather, he 'became' one of us, his alter-ego is the meek and ineffectual Clark Kent, his 'costume' an affected posture and a pair of glasses. It's a common joke that everyone should easily be able to recognize Clark Kent leaping from building to building. After all, Superman does not wear a mask and is constantly running into his co-workers. I was struck by what a good job Siegel and Schuster of refuting this idea. They repeatedly stress the degree to which Clark is an awkward loser. The bile that Lois and his co-workers reserve for him makes it clear that nobody would ever expect him to possess any of Superman's heroic qualities. Lois goes as far as to call him "sickening." They also stress the degree to which Superman strains against his disguise. Repeatedly, the voice of Superman is represented bubbling under Clark's meek facade. With both parenthesis and a different style of speech bubble (page 10, panel 3) they depict the genuine thoughts that Superman works, and often struggles, to suppress.
I also found it interesting that "Clark" is far more likely to act the part of a buffoon while he's in the office. It appears that Superman is especially on his guard around Lois and his fellow journalists. Out in the field, he is far more willing to carry himself with confidence. Siegel and Shuster don't just emphasize what a dweeb Clark his, they also take pains to depict Superman as his polar opposite in every way. I was surprised by how often this resulted in Superman coming off like a haughty jerk. The quippy dialogue that Superman uses on his foes was not the sort of thing I expected from the Man of Steel. Recent adaptations have painted Superman as a far more stoic character, one who does not appear gleeful while fighting crime. Recently, a friend and I discussed our disdain for Batman. A billionaire jock who beats up the mentally ill is hardly the sort of character we enjoy rooting for. This early Superman called to mind not just Batman but the affected over-confidence of Bruce Wayne and left a similar bad taste.
While I agree with most of what you said above, I think marking Clark Kent as the alter-ego is not quite that easy. In the early editions of the comics, it may appear that way due to the lack of a back story that Superman receives; however, the later versions of Kal-El's back story complicate the issue. In the later variations, we learn that he was raised on the Kent family farm as an average human until he began to develop his powers under the yellow sun. He grew up, for a time, as a human, instilled with human morals before he learned the truth. In variations of the story such as Smallville or Man of Steel, we see that Clark has his own human aspirations outside of repeatedly saving the world. Later, however, we see that his sense of responsibility takes over and Clark assumes the mantle of Superman. So, ultimately, I think it comes down to a debate of nature vs. nurture: Is he truly the son of Krypton that Jor-El claims he was born to be? Or is he the simple man with human aspirations that Jonathon and Martha Kent raised him to be? Or is it possible that neither is an alter-ego?
ReplyDelete