@sethysquare: I was hoping I wouldn't have to explain myself, however, since you seem not to understand my point, I shall rephrase. If the argument is about which is the disguise the answer is neither. The fact that I don't care that much is because I like Batman better, however, it's the same argument; to wit: Batman is two people, and they are both Bruce Wayne.
Now if I need to spell that out for you, simply because You can replace this same argument with the topic du jour, then by all means, assume that I've done that.
Do you get it now? If not, read the original post again. Reread until you do. These are easy steps.
I'm at least glad that Lobdell recognizes that Clark Kent is not just a suit Superman wears. The best Superman writing comes from the acknowledgement that Clark Kent is the man he is in his heart, and Superman is the suit he wears; counter to Batman who is Batman in his soul whose forced to wear the mask of 'Bruce Wayne.'
But Clark Kent can't use his powers in public, has to wear glasses, ergo, Clark Kent is also a disguise, a suit.
Disguises aren't just physical, they're mental too. The public portrayal of Superman is an act; a heightened sense of Clark Kent to put some distance between the public and private life. Therefore, Superman, regardless of the attire, is the disguise. The way Clark Kent acts isn't something he does to throw people off to the fact that he's Superman, but the way he acts as Superman serves to throw people off to the fact that he's Clark Kent.
But Clark Kent is also one of the last of a dead alien race. He was born on Krypton and raised on earth. As long as Clark is hiding this from the general public he is wearing a disguise of some kind. The fact is, the world wouldn't accept an alien living like a human amongst humans and doing incredible super things. If Clark would be accepted, he'd build the Fortress of Solitude on his home farm in Smallville, not in the Arctic away from civilization. The Superman persona would be more like a title like the Man Of Steel, not a secret identity anymore.
Wait.... that weakens your argument. IF Clark Kent could be accepted with his powers then he wouldn't need to be 'Superman' anymore. 'Superman' would be a title, but he'd be Clark Kent all the time. Hence, Superman is the false face, the disguise he wears; and Clark Kent is the truest expression of his self.
you obviously didnt read action comics and dont know much about superman.
hang out more woth us in superman forums.
That would require liking Superman more than Batman.
In the Morrisonverse, Most know that Clark and Bruce are Superman and Batman, respectively. However, no one says anything simply because, they are Superman and Batman.
If you don't understand this, then no amount of reading, as you suggest, is going to help you to get what's going on in the DCnU. Furthermore, the last 25 plus years of stories has taken place over three years DCnU time, based on Barbara Gordon's(The One True Batgirl) timeline. You need to take all of this into account before any commentary will make sense to those whose first Comic Con was after 1991.
The term itself didn't exist until Stan Lee coined it himself in the 60's. The medium didn't exist before what, 1935? Classic literature has all sorts of instances of what we would today refer to as either costumed heroes or superheroes. They just weren't called that back then.