05:41
Unknown
 |
| Copyright DC COMICS |
I think it was JOHN BYRNE - way back in the mid-'80s when he revised SUPER-MAN's origins in the wake of the CRISIS On INFINITE EARTHS series - who first posed the question as to why anyone would ever suspect that Supes must have a secret identity. Sure, it was traditional for masked heroes (and villains) to have other identities - that's why they wore masks to conceal who they really were - but KAL-EL didn't wear a mask, so why would anyone suppose he might be hiding who he really was - or even that there was a 'really was' to hide?
Although Byrne's reasoning seems logical at first, it begins to disintegrate when you think about Superman's early years. (His 1930s early years, that is - when the whole idea of LOIS LANE suspecting CLARK KENT of being Superman was first introduced.) To begin with, Supes was a vigilante wanted by the police. Nobody knew his name (it didn't take a genius to figure out that it was unlikely to be Superman on his birth certificate), nor did anyone know where he lived, so he obviously didn't gad about in his costume all the time. If he did, it wouldn't be hard for the cops to trail him back to his house after his weekly shopping trip to the supermarket and try and arrest him.
Therefore, he most likely had another name, but was obviously keeping it a secret. Presto! That's a secret identity right there. And he must've had a place to live which nobody knew about, so he was a figure who, as far as his everyday existence was concerned when he wasn't leaping about in his 'work' clothes, was concealing his true identity from the world. Even when he started having a better relationship with the authorities, he never said "Call me Steve" (or whatever) in response to anyone addressing him as Superman.
However, Byrne's version of Supes was never a vigilante, so let's just allow, for the sake of discussion, that no one would have any reason to imagine he had another identity. First though, I'm not convinced we're on solid ground going down that route, because if he didn't disguise himself in his 'off' hours, his neighbours would've been bound to cash-in on the fact by selling their story - "We're Superman's Next Door Neighbours!" - with photos of him sitting out in his back garden in a tee-shirt and jeans. But let's pretend otherwise. Let's just say that no one ever looked at Superman and thought he became someone else when he hung up his cloak at the end of the day (or wondered about where he lived and what he did when he wasn't catching criminals).
However, that's not how the whole Lois suspecting Supes being Clark came about. It was the reverse of that - she looked at Clark and realised that he bore a resemblance to Superman - and that he was never around when Supes was (and vice versa). Well, you can't have one without the other, obviously, because if Clark is Superman then the reverse is also true.
What about SUPERBOY then, when he was retroactively fitted in to Clark's continuity and history? Surely no one had any reason to suspect him of being other than who he was? Au contraire. People knew he must live in SMALLVILLE, but not precisely where - and they also knew that they'd never seen him attend school in his costume (or any other outfit). He surely had to have a disguise then, and was hiding out amongst them. To me, it seems the most natural assumption in the world for them to make - within the confines of a comic designed for kids.
However, Byrne's version of Supes was never a vigilante, so let's just allow, for the sake of discussion, that no one would have any reason to imagine he had another identity. First though, I'm not convinced we're on solid ground going down that route, because if he didn't disguise himself in his 'off' hours, his neighbours would've been bound to cash-in on the fact by selling their story - "We're Superman's Next Door Neighbours!" - with photos of him sitting out in his back garden in a tee-shirt and jeans. But let's pretend otherwise. Let's just say that no one ever looked at Superman and thought he became someone else when he hung up his cloak at the end of the day (or wondered about where he lived and what he did when he wasn't catching criminals).
However, that's not how the whole Lois suspecting Supes being Clark came about. It was the reverse of that - she looked at Clark and realised that he bore a resemblance to Superman - and that he was never around when Supes was (and vice versa). Well, you can't have one without the other, obviously, because if Clark is Superman then the reverse is also true.
What about SUPERBOY then, when he was retroactively fitted in to Clark's continuity and history? Surely no one had any reason to suspect him of being other than who he was? Au contraire. People knew he must live in SMALLVILLE, but not precisely where - and they also knew that they'd never seen him attend school in his costume (or any other outfit). He surely had to have a disguise then, and was hiding out amongst them. To me, it seems the most natural assumption in the world for them to make - within the confines of a comic designed for kids.
I therefore propose, my learned Criv-ites, that it's consequently not quite the stretch of imagination that Byrne suggests it to be (if it was him) to assume that Supes would've had a 'civilian' identity. To me, it would seem even more unlikely if he didn't. Anyway, what's your own opinion on this topic, readers? Feel free to voice your view in the comments section. You don't even have to do so under your real names - you can use your secret identities. (All the best people have them.)
Posted in: Cartoons
0 comments:
Post a Comment