Okay, then.

Topic I: Secret Identities

           Omitted from the list of reasons supporting a secret identity is that secrets are often not only an unnecessary burden to others, but they're hazardous to the health of the hero (or villain, for that matter) to spread around even among most loved ones. Most people are leaky information vessels, for one thing. For another, to in any way casually inflict such dire knowledge on friends and loved ones is to ask them to take up the burden of keeping that secret from the world, not to mention putting them under the stress of knowing that each time he disappears he's most likely putting his life on the line. This is a move which strikes me as potentially crueler by far than coming clean with said lovers and pals. That a hero would choose to shoulder this burden, too, is something that adds to the nobility of his role.

          The notion that sharing this information with loved ones would be in some way kinder, allowing them to prepare for the possibility of danger from costumed baddies who discover the truth strikes me as absurd in most cases. Yeah, I'm sure Aunt May would effectively beef up that home security if only that dishonest, conniving nephew of hers would come clean. No, it only makes sense to share this information with loved ones who are more capable of effectively doing something about it. Alfred or one of the Robins, for instance in Batman's case, or Captain America's tendency to only share his secret identity with fellow super-heroes and very close S.H.I.E.L.D. agents. Barring that, the best defense for loved ones is either continued anonymity (the route so many have taken) or to keep virtually everyone in one's life as no more than acquaintances - what the Batman has done under most of his writers.

          So, probably the most noble course of action would be upon taking up a mask to cut off all close human contact, but if that isn't a big step down the road to creepiness then I don't know what is. To say that Peter lying to Aunt May in the course of concealing his identity is as selfish as it is noble is throwing the scales far out of balance. He's making a compromise in order to adversely affect as few lives as possible, and taking all of the burden on himself. If she knew it would uselessly stress her out both in terms of keeping the secret and worrying about him all the time whenever she heard news reports, and if she pushed him to give it up he'd know he was doing the wrong thing, denying the moral responsibility that came with his paranormal abilities. No, he's taking all the load on himself and not having a very fine time of it. While I, too, wouldn't go so far as to call the lies "harmless", I see the harm of it falling on the poor hero who has to constantly edit himself.

           We've seen in series and regarding characters that have progressed through the years, a majority of heroes have either opted or by default ended up sharing their secret with others. Wives and girlfriends have been brought into it, the occasional friend, super-teammates (to use a term that admittedly underscores the kid-friendly nature of the genre), etc. The revelations involving the emotionally closest relationships (wives and ones who may as well be given the sack-time) have generally been the most dramatically interesting to watch. The possible extremes have been Dian and Wesley's (Golden Age Sandman) relationship, where she took on more the role of partner in aspects of the adventures, to the sometimes aggravating drag presented by Peter Parker's late wife, Mary Jane, though the writers sometimes tried to work in a savvy assist from her as I recall, especially in smoothing over his sudden disappearances.

            Personally, I've been more a fan of the secret identity-sharing between the heroes themselves, as when the Black Panther discovered Daredevil's identity by following him, and Daredevil picked Peter Parker out as Spider-Man by, among other things, his heartbeat. In each of these sorts of cases the discovering hero shared his secret in turn, and that included the Black Panther/T'Challa since he let DD/Matt Murdock in on his secret ID as urban schoolteacher Luke Charles. But all of this is digression.

            Darren and I have never agreed on just how unsavory the idea of masked men taking violent action is. To me it makes a great deal of difference who the targets are and just how violent the action is. Targeting thieves, robbers, burglars, muggers and killers (not to mention sheer maniacs and would-be Rulers of the World) while in costume doesn't strike me as especially scary or creepy. Those people prey on the common folk, often by striking suddenly, violently, and anonymously. Seeing someone else come at them in a similar (but less deadly) fashion would be rather nice. Oh, the suspicions concerning ulterior motives would be there at times, and the fear that they might step over the line and, perhaps, after a slow week on the crime front decide to take up a similar championing of some other social issues. Still, once Spidey starts roughing up doctors at Planned Parenthood in an attempt to save some fetuses then we can consider him a scary menace. Until then I'd be willing to wait and see.

            Similarly, the notion that people whose responsibilities require them to lie to everyone they care about aren't "very nice" or "especially reliable" makes me wonder about the people employed at deep levels of government, who are sworn to keep most or all of their activities secret. I simply can't paint them with such a broad brush. I also question the diagnosis of psychosis when it comes to those who would be able to lie to nearly everyone consistently for years about a specific aspect of their lives, and similarly with the notion that this protective compartmentalization would mean that any emotions they express would be simulated. If concealing aspects of ourselves from others somehow mystically makes all of our emotions not genuine, then I must inform the author that in my experience that likely means most of the people he does know and has ever known have simulated their emotions.

            I agree fairly solidly with what's said concerning all the costume and - especially - gear concealment.

            To add to the list of ridiculous concealments, consider that through roughly a decade (our time) of Iron Man's early adventures his heart was dependent upon devices in his armored chestplate, which he had to wear all the time. Oh, later they got into all the "polarized chain mail" aspects, but especially in the early years it was a big, heavy affair, yet he looked quite svelte and dapper wherever he went. Now, there's a lot a top-notch tailor can do when money is not a problem, but there are limits.

            When it came to Hawkeye, I know that some early attempts were made to have him stash everything in an appropriately-sized, semi-cylindrical bag. As time wore on, though, it was one of those details that was… misplaced.

            As I said, we're in general agreement on all the silly conventions of secret identities when it comes to the effectiveness of masks and the concealment of costumes and gear.

            To expand on the Star Brand scene at the comics convention a little, they also noted his voice, regional accent, and the fairly clear evidence of a large nose under the hood-mask he was wearing to further pin down his identity.

           The Batman/Bruce Wayne analysis presumes that the world knows that Bruce Wayne is a martial artist, detective and criminologist, though, and it really depends upon which line of history one's read as to whether or not this is information most (someone lacking the determination and resources of a Ras Al Ghul, for instance) would find accessible. Certainly the other elements are more than enough to sink his secret ID (especially when one considers Robin), but in some of the retellings we're presented with a very secretive Bruce Wayne who acquired most if not all of his specialized knowledge while traveling and living under assumed names before returning to Gotham to receive that last bit of inspiration.

           On Superman: No DC scholar, I, but in the Credit Where Due Department I believe that it was John Byrne who took the "why would Superman have a secret identity?" approach to explain why people didn't suspect Clark Kent. I'm open to confirmation that this was merely one of the many elements that Byrne rehashed during his Man of Steeling process, but it's where I, latecomer to DC that I am, remember it from 16 years ago. (I'm only mentioning this because I know how much you enjoy giving Byrne credit...) A computer took all the known info and informed Lex of the connection, and Lex took it as confirmation that the damned machine was faulty.

           Still, none of that cuts and ice with me when it comes to those who worked closely with Clark, though, especially Lois.

           By and large, while I agree with much of the assessment of the behavioral burden of maintaining a secret identity, and the too-often silly conventions regarding the costumes, I still see it as a major leap to declare secret identities themselves as a matter of idiocy. The point is just that the conventions were laid down early on and even when the stories and approaches became more three-dimensional almost no one took the time to question the mechanics of it. To toss out secret identities (especially for the non-powered to more marginally super-powered characters) would only be a further descent into fantasy. At best you'd end up with Top Ten, where there wouldn't be secret identities but merely duly registered alter egos, or more likely The City, where The Tick lives, where the heroes and villains wear their costumes all the time.

            A practical approach to secret identities would involve less-skin-tight items (especially masks) and/or deliberately misleading elements (such as porous latex mouldings inside the mask and costume to alter the appearance of bone (cheekbones, brow ridges, jawline) and muscle structure, real-time electronic measures to alter the voice, etc., and to make sure that only one of your identities is a particularly public figure. Masks would have to have ample openings for the eyes, which could be accomplished via wide lenses, tapering masks with spirit gum or similar adhesive and/or just some makeup in towards the eyes. It's a set of problems that's addressable. Just because so many have been doing it wrong for 60-odd years doesn't mean it can't be done right, and it's certainly no proof that it doesn't need to be done at all. The only sane circumstance for doing any of this extralegal costumed adventuring would be if one had a safe, quiet civilian life to retire to for down-time, so not only is a secret identity not intrinsically nonsensical, it could easily be seen as vital.

            As for the childhood/secret identity associations, my earlier point is that in many ways the daily deceptions and differences in who we are from one situation to another is something I believe most hold onto. My belief is that those who plow on through their adult lives as the same person with every situation are likely to be considered one or more of the following: Bland (though if one's pleasant about it, as is usually the case, this could be termed a "Regular Guy", which usually means no one really cares so long as he goes with the flow and doesn't get in the way) , an Asshole, a Curmudgeon (generally accepted by most as a variation on Asshole unless it's at a great distance and low frequency of contact, and/or their tastes and politics match), Inappropriate, and/or Eccentric (if you have the cash to get away with it.)

Topic II: Secret Identities

            When one considers the impractical nature of most business attire, and the grotesquely absurd fashions and glaring, unnatural colors we've lived through in the 70's alone, I'm not so quick to dismiss costumes as a whole. Certainly, they're not especially practical matters - between bright colors and especially capes. Still, I've seen people on the street with clownish clothes on, and they got away with it for a while because the kings and queens of fashion (okay, so they're likely ALL queens) had so dictated, and they were likely able to buy them (or approximations of the same) at K-Mart. The same goes for haircuts and styles, too, which can be at least as ridiculously impractical as all but the worst of the mask/headgear combinations in comics.

           My point here is that a great many things looked damned laughable at first, but soon - for a time at least - came into their own, usually because someone perceived as larger than life (generally media stars) paraded around in them. We've seen in the matter of - well - the length of some movies how something formerly geeky (say, red suspenders and hair that's plastered to the scalped with some goo) turned into a high-powered fashion requirement for a Wall Street savvy commodities trader. So much of it lies in the selling.

           When going after some of the costumes, especially Batman and those who followed in that mold, there's no getting around the fact that it's simply not made to be taken well in harsh light, especially the daytime. And, certainly, something a little less garish would likely be more effective. However, I don't simply dismiss it as pure pandering to the kids. What makes something look silly or serious is always a matter of preconceptions, and that (and changing that) is all a matter of acting and selling the package.

            Undoubtedly, most people would laugh at people running around in costumes, especially at a distance. But, they'd come in time to accept it. It's a so-so example, but take Mr. T. (please!). We all laughed and likely still do at the blunted Mohawk and the chains & rings, but tell me honestly, would you do it if he were standing right in front of you? Maybe you would, convinced that he's at heart a nice guy and if he laid a hand on you you'd almost immediately hear a sonic boom as 300 lawyers rushed you in order to take the case… but all that really proves is that Mr. T. is too public a figure. If he had a secret identity he could disappear into, and the real and true word on the street was that he took no shit from anyone, I suspect you'd leave the sniggering at his fashion sense for once he was out of earshot. Much the same could be said for any of the many pro wrestlers today.

            The wearing of costumes is in many ways an extension of the time-honored cultural and artistic tradition of masks. They liberate the wearer from his old identity. The psychological significance is often more important to the wearer than to those who are merely looking. Much as with hypnosis, or karate for that matter, affecting a change in the wearer so that he believes himself capable of feats and behavior generally beyond those in his daily life could be extremely important. The psychological transformation is the most important thing, removing the mundane identity with all its limitations and baggage of failure, and replacing it with something purer, more direct and powerful. This is the reading I, at least, took from the sexual encounter between the second Nite Owl (Dan Dreiberg) and the second Silk Spectre in Watchmen, not the rather petty and mundane blanket of "sexual titillation." This does, admittedly, seem to apply more to the men than the women, by far, as with much of mainstream fashion through most of history the women seem to be stuck with the least practical of clothing/costumes.

             Similarly, the demeaning that is done of costumes throughout (save for the pragmatic problems such as Dollar Bill's cape and Rorschach's mask during the confrontation with Veidt) seemed to be done by those who had a legitimate beef with the costumes (the second Silk Spectre), those who tried to feel superior to it in their way (Comedian and Veidt) and those in simple denial (Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl II.)

             So, as with secret identities, I take issue with the notion that the costumes are simply "ridiculous" and that they make "little sense."

Topic III: Secret Origins

            For the purposes of your topic - demonstrating how each of these elements is targeted at kids - you failed to reach me here unless you're saying that we as Responsible Adults are not supposed to indulge in some simple elements of fantasy in order to get a story going. I'm not for an instant going to argue that the origins aren't silly, and that to call most of them "impractical" would be an understatement. I think, though, that we should look beyond this.

           Certainly, it's not the sort of message many parents would want to impress on their children - I think that it's the sort of thing that may have been largelly responsible for so many "comics geeks" remaining as such, as they on some level found themselves always waiting for some bolt from the blue to transform them. (Think of the class action lawsuit many of us could bring for stunted lives…) One could look at this and see such fantastic origins as something best suited for adults. Much as in ancient Greece, where a young person's formal education began in matters of geometry, and only once they reached a higher age of reason and grasped many such matters were they permitted formal instruction in the often whimsical and hypothetical necessities of philosophical thought and discussion. To discuss the nature of reality via such thought constructs as The Cave with young minds was considered Wrong and potentially damaging. Then and now, as adults we're supposed to be more secure and better able to handle these elements.

            I must admit, too, that you lost me by using the Peter Parker/Spider-Man origin as your example of a teenage character who was being driven by loving parent figures and then becomes "Self Actualized" by the effects of his physical empowerment. He was already far beyond his peers intellectually, needing instead to develop himself socially… and his powers, if anything, made that often even more difficult than before. This is even setting aside that Maslow's five points are supposed to be a hierarchy and Self-Actualization is the highest of these, while Pete was still struggling (even moreso) with #2 (Safety) and his Esteem needs (#4) were rather precariously tangled up in his alter ego and the fact that for most of his career even then he wasn't getting true appreciation and recognition due to the smear campaigns run against him. More importantly, though, while Pete might have "blown" by his potential in physical terms, he had to do it in another guise and by a means that made his old sense of such potential irrelevant. The process that lifted him into the realm of the super-human also gave him a new potential. Also, as time wore on, the responsibilities of his life in terms of using his potential for the maximum benefit of his fellow beings eventually caused him to shelve the path to potential of his intellectual and scientific abilities, the path he would have traveled had he never been bitten by that radioactive spider. What wonders might a brilliant scientist such as Peter Parker brought to the world had it not been for the constant, over-riding distractions of his alter ego? Certainly, he continued to use his intellectual abilities to the best his circumstance would allow, but it has resulted in him in some ways being as out of balance now as he was as a pre-empowered teen, with just the intellectual and physical roles somewhat reversed.

Topic IV: Super Powers

             Not much to discuss here on the basic premise. Yes, the superpowers are a major sticking point for most adults.

             I would like to offer some different reasons for the lack of popularity of the examples you chose, rather than stating it simply as "fake" powers vs. "real" ones. I know that that was never a big issue with me, and I also know why I wouldn't want to be either Green Lantern or Iron Man.

            Green Lantern - especially the Silver Age one both Darren and I grew up knowing by that name - is a policeman. Now, I know that many kids want to grow up to be policemen (I didn't happen to be one of them, but that's beside the point), but in GL's case there was the immediate twist of the Oans. Talk about stodgy, repressive Adult Figures. Oh, sure, I can do anything my mind can conceive and my will can power, but there's a council of little, blue grandfathers out there monitoring my actions and ready to call me on the carpet if they don't approve. If I don't comply, they can kill my power battery. That's power with far too many strings to appeal to a kid. That's like showing a kid a realistic police show, where better than 70% of the "action" is playing office politics and doing paperwork, and then expecting him to want to be a policeman. Those are the reasons, at least, why I didn't want to be a GL.

            Iron Man. My objection had nothing to do with how "real" the powers were. So long as I knew how to repair and augment the systems, and had the means to do it, who cared? I certainly didn't. What was the immediate turn-off for me was that piece of shrapnel in his chest, and the need to keep his chestplate unite constantly charged in order to keep his heart beating. Uh… no thanks.

            I can't give an honest answer on the question of the Legion of Superheroes, as the Silver Age incarnation of that team struck me as silliness even then, even in contrast to DC's mainstream heroes of Batman, Superman, etc. that I barely tolerated anyway. The "no artificial powers" law was one I wasn't even familiar with, come to think of it. I thought their "must have at least one unique power" rule was silly enough, and wondered why there weren't regular challenges made by members of each of the races, since for the most part they seemed to have abilities that were natural to their race. No, I never warmed up to the Legion, at least not as a child.

            Anyway, I can assure that at any age I can recall, if someone offered me a non-monitored power ring (say, Sinestro's or one of the sort worn by Power Ring himself) I'd have taken it in an instant over not only Bouncing Boy's powers but those of Matter-Eater Lad, Karate Kid, and, jeez… didn't they have some Magnet Boy or something? In an instant. No contest. All I cared about was what they'd enable me to do. The only times "real" powers became an issue were if they offered more of a guarantee of permanence, and even then I'd be back to looking at the powers.

           In conclusion, I honestly don't think it's fair to typify superhero comics as the province of children merely because they involve elements that have for so long and largely been treated as offhand points of fantasy. Further, those elements themselves don't need to be waived off as necessarily pure fantasy elements; they can be made to work, and to paint them all as irrational silliness is to invite more slipshod plotting.