Action Comics 710 – 717

In issue 711, at the climax of “The Death of Clark Kent”, when Superman confronts Conduit, he does something very dramatic: Superman takes off his costume, offering to fight his enemy not as Superman but as Clark Kent. After all, Conduit is really Kenny Braverman (subtle, huh?), Clarks childhood friend. It is Clark that Kenny has grown to hate; it is Clark’s life that Kenny has been systematically attacking for the last two months worth of comicbooks. It’s a powerful moment, as it clearly illustrates that there is a difference between Superman and Clark Kent. Except everything else in this story, as well as what follows, shows there’s no difference between the two at all.

The fascinating thing about the “Death of Clark Kent” storyline (aside from the fact that Clark never dies, but we’ll get to that in a moment) is how it tries to show the difference between two characters who are, in fact, the same. When the John-Byrne reboot occurred in the mid-80’s, Byrne inverted the usual convention. Until then, “Clark Kent” was the secret identity of “Superman”. Clark was who Superman pretended to be so he could have some privacy. But Byrne switched the paradigm. He reasoned that, since Jonathan and Martha Kent raised a boy named “Clark” and not “Superman”, that meant Clark was the true person. “Superman” was the persona Clark took on so he could accomplish his great deeds but still have the life he made for himself up until the moment he decided to become Superman.

That’s a sound argument to make in theory, but in practice it never held up if for nothing else than the fact that people only cared about the adventures of Superman, and not Clark Kent. (I’m sure someone could write a compelling comicbook about an intrepid reporter exposing injustice through exposes instead of punches, but I doubt it would capture the imagination of six-year-olds like Superman has.) Especially in the post-Stern world of Action Comics, Clark and his family are more window dressing than a substantive part of the story. So it’s very telling that when Superman attempts to confront his enemy as “Clark”, even without the giant “S” on his chest, he still looks like Superman, still flies like Superman, still rips steel apart like its tissue paper. The persona of Clark Kent does not die in “The Death of Clark Kent”, but for all (perhaps unintended) purposes, the story does put the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Clark Kent is a separate personality.

As an adult, that is a horribly unsatisfying conclusion. I realize that one of the other Superman titles delves into this relationship a little bit more than these issues of Action Comics did, but given that in the very next issue, “Clark Kent” is back, it’s hard to put any investment into any story that tries to put the concept of Clark Kent in jeopardy.  Even worse, in attempting to summarize why the persona of Clark Kent is still around, writer David Micheline explains everything by having Clark tells Lois: “I need to be Clark Kent even more than I need to be Superman” Except, why is Clark referring to himself in the third person? If he is Clark, shouldn’t he be saying “I need to be myself even more than I need to be Superman”? And if Clark is the fabricated personality then what is it about Clark that is so important? Is Lois in love with Clark or Superman? It’s such an awful, awful line of dialogue that it positively screams the fact that either the team of writers really had no idea what they were doing with “The Death of Clark Kent” or, worse, that nobody cared enough to think the situation through.

That was pretty much the conclusion my 20 year old self was coming to after first reading this storyline in 1995. Despite how much DC Comics would hype any “event” in the Superman comics, it would lead to only a temporary change, and the status quo would return soon enough. This is a problem endemic to all superhero comics, of course, but it is especially obvious in the marquee titles (Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc) because these characters are so iconic that any radical change would mean losing the qualities that made them so iconic in the first place.  But what’s the point of getting emotionally invested in these kinds of “major event” stories when nothing changes because of them?

It was clear nothing was going to change any time soon. The next few issues after “The Death of Clark Kent” are more self-contained, with only #715 directly leading into another Superman title, but right after that the next big event storyline kicked into gear: “The Trial of Superman” This storyline essentially put Superman in your standard “jail break/fugitive” plot, and though I found the two parts covered in Action Comics to be nowhere as bad as I remembered them (I rather enjoyed seeing Superman in this type of story. The characters introduced in the story weren’t particularly fleshed-out, but I liked seeing Superman so far out of his element.) I can imagine the frustration my younger self must have had at yet another event that went nowhere.

I know this is how DC kept Superman sales up in the 90’s; but after three years I was getting tired of it. Just look at the sheer volume of it all: Since 1992 there was “Doomsday”, “Funeral for a Friend”, “Reign of the Supermen”, “Dead Again”, “The Battle of Metropolis”, “The Fall of Metropolis”, “The Death of Clark Kent” and now “The Trial of Superman”. Eight major events in a 36 month period. Superman comics were more about the event than the adventures and reading this all now, the only thing I find amazing was that I was willing to go along for the ride as long as I did.

I know there’s a fine line to walk here. I know that I am judging stories based only on a few installments rather than as a whole. But those installments should make me want to read more, not be glad I only have one more part to read. An event needs to live up to its name, a story of epic proportions should have a payoff equal to the set-up. But as I mentioned above: the payoff is negligible. Superman may die, he may lose his mind, Metropolis may be destroyed . . . but a few issues later, Superman is alive, his sanity is returned, and Metropolis is magically restored to its usual glory. “The Trial of Superman” may have him arrested and sentenced to death for the destruction of Krypton, but three guesses what happens at the end, and the first two don’t count.

A favorite phrase of mine is: “the point of a journey is not to arrive”. The idea that it’s the time spent reaching for a destination that matters. You may never become the greatest guitar player in the world, but the time spent practicing and playing still gives you joy and allows you to improve your skills as best you can. The same sort of thinking applies to these Superman comics. There can be a lot of fun in reading about Superman going another round with Lex Luthor, so long as each conflict provides a new twist or causes a change that has ramifications that affect the next confrontation. But if that conflict hits the same notes over and over--when nothing changes--then it simply becomes monotonous.

Up Next: Now that I’m done with Superman, my next blog entry is about . . . Superman! Just when I think I’m out, they pull me back in. We skip ahead a few years to my second round with Superman comics, as DC tries to revive the franchise without revising it. (gee, doesn’t that sound familiar….)