I've noticed that many fans will refer to superheroes by their "civilian" names (i.e. "When Clark fought Zod" or "When Peter battled Doc Ock") even though they aren't referring to them while in their civilian identities: For example, "Clark Kent ducks into the supply room at the Planet and changes into Superman."

This strikes me as a distinct change from the way things were when I first started reading comics. As a kid, I always felt that Batman and Superman were *always* Batman and Superman -- even when not in costume. I did usually think, "Superman disguised as Clark Kent." Oddly enough, my father would do the same thing -- something I've noticed most "civilians" do. For instance, when my non-comics reading coworker described the recent FF movie, she would say, "Mr. Fantastic did this, the Thing did that, and the Invisible Woman did this." Conversely, comics fans would tend to say, "Reed did this, Ben did that, and Sue did this." Even if the casual fan didn't know their code names, he or she would more often than not refer to the character by his powers -- "Stretchy Guy" or "Rock Guy" for instance.

I'm not sure what this means, but as I said, it's something I've noticed. Do these fans feel somehow "closer" to the characters, which is why they refer to them by their "real" names? Or do the non-fans actually buy into the mythic nature of the characters more?

Depends on the character. When talking about the FF Reed, Sue, Johnny and Ben work just as well as Mr.Fantastic, Invisible Girl Human Torch and the Thing. This is because they dont have secret IDs and even when costume they are Reed, Sue, Johnny and Ben. Characters like Batman, Superman and Spider-Man who's costumed identities are separate from their civilian ones are different. Spider-man fought Doc Ock. Peter Parker visited Aunt May.  The distiction should be made and maintained. (all IMO)

Yeah, I think using the "real names" maked them seem more real to some people.

It has to do, I think, with the lessening of the awe factor that used to be so much a part of comicbook mythology. As more and more fans have turned pro, we have seen the introduction of such nicknames as "Supes" and "Bats", which can only be described as irreverent, at best, and in parallel we have seen the arrival of "Clark" and "Bruce" and "Peter" instead of the superhero names. The latter is, at least, still mostly respectful. I dread the day when the next "generation" transforms these into "Clarkie" and "Brucie" and "Petey".

Okay, how many here would say that is an accurate description of Spider-Man, the Hulk, Thor, the X-Men, Iron Man, or Captain America? To name but a few.

It seems that, back in the day, most of the superheroes were still "on duty" while in their civilian identities.  Clark's thought balloons didn't have much to do with his life as Clark... he was thinking about Superman's current case, or Superman's relationship with Lois.

Now we seem to spend a great deal more time watching the heroes go about their daily business.  A back-up series like the Private Life of Clark Kent that was around in the early 70's wouldn't be very useful today.

++++

an accurate descriptions of Spider-Man...?

****

It's not true of Spider-Man.

But tangentially I get the sense, and I'm referring most especially to the Lee/Ditko stories, that the character felt such an acute sense of alienation at times that not only when he was Peter Parker was he masquerading as Spider-Man, but similarly when he was Spider-Man he was masquerading as Peter Parker. I mean, especially in those early stories, just as Peter Parker was Spider-Man's secret identity, Spider-Man was also Peter Parker's secret identity. Being Spider-Men kept Peter apart from his fellow civilians. Yet, Spider-Man also never fit in with other superheroes, and it seems that the not-subsumed identity of Peter behind the mask played a part in that.

By contrast, Don Blake always seemed to me quite separate from Thor, and vice-versa. Blake was Blake, and Thor was Thor.