Pretend for a second that you're a comic book geek, and this post will be a lot easier to read.

"Superman," like all superheroes, is a symbol of larger themes that the comic book artist is trying to get across. "Batman" is mad at a system that would let madmen run loose through the streets, offing people like his parents. The "X-Men" are symbols of how people struggle for civil rights. With "Superman," he's supposed to be a symbol for everything virtuous. He doesn't lie, he has a strong sense of right and wrong, and believes in a strict code of justice. There's no bribing Superman.

But what I find interesting about Superman is that we often view Superman as being of strong moral character because of his superhero strengths and because he comes from an alien planet. We think that he is the way he is because he comes from Krypton and he has superhuman powers, when the truth is that he got his values of right and wrong from his adopted planet and his adopted parents.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I've always viewed Superman's superhuman strength as Krypton's gift to Earth, while his strong moral character is Earth's gift to itself. It's as if the comic writers for Superman are saying that we are all capable of being superpeople, even if we don't have the accompanying superhuman strength to backup all that we do or would want to do.

Although he didn't come up with this, Tarantino brilliantly illustrated part of this in his "Kill Bill Vol. 2" when he talked about how Superman is different than other comic book superheroes. Most Superheroes are created; Spiderman was bitten by a radioactive bug, the Hulk got hit by some bad gamma rays, Bruce Wayne became Batman after seeing his parents gunned down. But with Superman, he was *always* Superman.

If anyone, Superman had to become Clark Kent. Superheroes pick their secret identities to throw off anyone and everyone who might get curious to who the superhero really is. Darkly serious Batman is really fun, playboy Bruce Wayne. Peter Parker is an unfunny, uncool geek, while Spiderman is a sarcastic, uber cool hero. The Hulk is a nerdy scientist.

Clark Kent is the clumsy, blubbering journalist while Superman is the sure footed, serious superhero. But there's more going on with Superman and Clark Kent. Since Superman never became Superman, his alias had to come from how he viewed humanity. While the other hero aliases almost seem to be aliases out of necessity, Superman's alias seems to be one of choice.

It's necessary for David Banner to be a doctor, because a doctor/scientist would be the only person who could "cure" his condition. It's necessary for Professor Xavier to be a teacher, because he has to keep up the front that he's running as legitimate of a school as possible. But with Superman, he chose to become the bumbling journalist. So just like Tarantino wrote in Kill Bill, Superman chose Clark Kent and all the mannerisms he has because that is how Superman views humanity; weak, bumbling, in a constant state of help.

But on the other side of this argument, some would say that Superman didn't choose Clark Kent because of how he viewed humanity, but more because of his Smallville upbringing. The values of the small town were implanted in Clark early, and just became a part of his being. In this argument, there's no conscious choice of him *becoming* Clark Kent, because the bumbling Clark Kent is exactly how someone from a small town would act once he got to the big Metropolis.

I guess this only gets more confusing because there is a definite disconnect in the way Superman acts and the way Clark Kent acts. So there's definitely some kind of acting job going on, one way or another. I tend to think that Superman is the Alpha. Superman is the way that this person would act at all times if he should so choose, while Clark Kent is the disguise he *has* to throw up in order to lead a normal life.

I don't know. I've rambled on long enough.

matt out