••

Only if you assume his life began the day he put on the costume.

••

Of course I can't find it now, but weeks ago I took the position that Clark
Kent is the "true" identity, and that Superman is the one he adopted in order
to more effectively use his powers to do good. I think more people may
have been on the other side of that argument though.

I'd be interested to see the sales figures you apparently have access to, that allows you to declare that use "effective".

"Effective" not based on sales figures but for me personally as I became aware of the project through it, while not reading Previews, Wizard, the preview in X-Men #94 or having access to your old AOL forum. Since I bought and liked the issues of Avengers Perez was drawing, I thought I'd check out Hidden Years as I always liked those characters and your work on super-hero teams. Sinnot inking the FF was the clincher.

The local direct market stores also had copies of the first seven issues, something that not everybody had access to around that time.

I was really out of the new comic scene at the time as I wouldn't even pick up the fill-in issues of Avengers that Jerry Ordway and Stuart Immonen did. So for me, seeing your work featured in the ad for a few months seemed like a big promotion. Without cheating by pulling out the books, I think the ads were for Heroes Return, one of your Spider-Man drawings, Claremont's return to X-Men, Hidden Years, and Bishop. There may have been one for the Thor relaunch as it was later than the other Heroes Return books. I couldn't tell you which books were featured in the Bullpen page during that time as I didn't read most of them.

Emphasis added:

Grant Morrison wrote: The original champion of the repressed Superman, the socialism and stuff, I wanted a bit of that.

Superman is championing neurotics now?   Considering today's comic audience, I find that charmingly apropos.

••

Well, as they say, if we can reach just ONE person --- we're doing a really shitty job.

Wallace Sellars: "Of course I can't find it now, but weeks ago I took the position that Clark Kent is the "true" identity, and that Superman is the one he adopted in order to more effectively use his powers to do good. I think more people may have been on the other side of that argument though."

Post-Man of Steel, I'd agree with you.  Pre-Man of Steel, "Superman" was a lot closer to his real personality, albeit influenced by his upbringing by the Kents, and "Clark" was mainly there to a) give Superman some downtime once in awhile and b) allow him to interact with normal people without them expecting him to help out if something bad happens.  (Refer to the various "Why is there a Clark Kent?" stories over the years.) 

But even from the beginning, too much of his personality came from the role he was playing for me to think of him as the real guy.

Also refer to the occasional panel where Superman seems to think of Clark Kent as a role he plays Pre-MoS.  (Unfortunately, I don't have access to my collection so I can't dig out some panels.)  Compare that to post-MoS (well, before Infinite Crisis) where about the only thing false about the Clark Kent persona is him pretending that he can't juggle Chevys.

(Now, if what we're actually arguing about is whether or not Superman thinks of himself as Clark Kent, adopted son of the Kents, regardless of his public behavior using that name, then never mind.  I'd still disagree (at least by the time we got to Weisinger), but I can see it being open for interpretation.)

••

Don't confuse hackneyed writing with personality. It's a mistake too many people, writers, editors and readers, of comics, make. The things WE know should not automatically be the things the CHARACTERS know.

As originally created by Siegel and Shuster (see above) Clark spent his whole life, up to the death of his parents, without having to affect a "secret identity". He was simply Clark. When he decided to take a public role, he INVENTED the character of Superman. And, then, needing a place to "go" when he wasn't Superman, he invented a second personality for Clark.

But Clark, in whatever form he takes, is still "the real guy". Superman is just a suit.

What era is the Superman page from, Dave? It's interesting in that that Clark Kent is almost precisely Chris Reeves' interpretation in SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, ect. Or at least how it was written in the script.

I never much cared for Clark as a weakling coward, honestly, simply because it speaks ill of the Kents themselves, his parents, who raised him. He'd have no reason to be a neurotic bumbler, given his upbringing.

If he wanted to affect a real secret identity, he should have developed a third persona, the bumbler. Not Clark, not Kal-El. He'd have a different name and it'd be all an act to allow him to become Superman any time. He'd be the Stan Laurel of Metropolis.

When in Smallville, he'd be Clark Kent, perhaps the novelist that JB established him as. Assured, decent, truly himself.