Any point in secret identities?
- Thread starter Replica Picard
- Start date
These days, I believe they do, but in the old days they rarely did. Superman and Batman/Robin knew each other's identities, but they were an exception, and it happened by accident (in their first crossover, Clark and Bruce happened to get booked in the same cabin on a ship and spotted each other trying to change into their supersuits in the dark).
Interestingly, Jimmy Olsen learned Batman's identity but not Superman's. There was a Silver Age story where Supes and Bats swapped teen sidekicks for a while, and since Jimmy was filling Robin's shoes, Batman revealed his identity to him.
Eventually, yes, but at the start Giant-Man, the Wasp, Thor, and even the Hulk all did. But over time, the world discovered Banner was the Hulk, Giant-Man and the Wasp went public, and Thor just gave up being Donald Blake.
I recall that for quite a few years, the Avengers just thought that Tony Stark was the guy who bankrolled them and donated his mansion and butler for their use.
Nope. Thor was secretly Don Blake. Ant Man and the Wasp were secretly Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne. Even Banner wasn't known to be Hulk at that stage.
And Iron Man was Stark's bodyguard.
Secret Wars 1,1984.
Reed Richards (Maybe?) "Look Stark, don't give me any guff about being your own bodyguard. Everyone knows who you are."
Jim "Iron Man " Rhodes takes his gauntlet off, and waggles his fingers at Mr Fantastic.
You know one of the good reasons for a secret identity is for plausible deniability when it comes to those in government and how they work with them or are willing to look the other way. If you know for a fact Bruce Wayne is Batman for example then it could be argued the cops have no choice but to arrest him. But if people suspect he is Batman but don't know for sure you can keep putting up the Bat signal and everything. It's a possible way for government to get around vigilante laws.
Jason
Jason
Adam West's Batman was deputized.
If everyone Batman punched knew who he really was, then they would sue Bruce Wayne.
If everyone Batman punched knew who he really was, then they would sue Bruce Wayne.
Although as I said, I'm not sure deniability is a desirable thing from the hero's perspective. A vigilante would be subject to criminal charges and lawsuits that a state actor would be protected from because they were acting under official authority. If the only protection you have against those things is anonymity, that's an unreliable thing. Particularly since, if a vigilante is sued or charged with a crime, the police would then be obligated to attempt to identify and arrest them. So I don't think they could just look the other way as you suggest.
I think too many superhero stories just take the use of a secret identity for granted without really considering whether it's necessary. There are some stories where it makes more sense than others. It's worth looking into its history to see where it came from to begin with.
It's generally accepted that the modern trope of dual-identity heroes began with the Baroness Orczy's novel The Scarlet Pimpernel, about an English nobleman who used his disguise skills to rescue French nobles from the guillotine during the Reign of Terror, pretending to be a foppish coward in his public persona to throw off suspicion. In his case, presumably the reason for his secrecy was to protect himself from being dragged to the guillotine by Robespierre's execution-happy extremists, or perhaps to avoid conflict between England and France if it were learned that an English noble was acting against the revolutionary government.
The next major dual-identity hero, and the first with a mask and cape, was Zorro, who was a vigilante protecting commoners against the tyranny of their oppressive government. So working with the authorities was clearly out of the question. Then we get into the era of pulp vigilantes like the Shadow and the Spider, who were extremely, extremely murderous in their wars on crime, so maybe there the dual identity was about the fantasy of being able to act outside the law and conventional morality. I've never understood why there was a fashion for such incredibly bloodthirsty "heroes" in the pulp era, vigilantes so violent that some would even knowingly murder innocent people if it advanced their goals. But in any case, their reason for acting outside the law is obvious -- they're basically serial killers themselves.
So basically there are two foundational reasons for secret identities in heroic fiction: Either to protect a moral hero from corrupt and oppressive authorities, or to protect a morally questionable, violent vigilante from the authorities of a just, lawful society that frowns on such things. The early comic-book heroes were sort of a mix of both; Superman was initially a crusader against institutionalized corruption, and Batman was originally a blatant ripoff of the Shadow.
But once you get to the point that superheroes become lawful, heroic figures working in alliance with clean, trustworthy police and government officials, the perpetuation of the secret identity trope becomes iffier. Keeping the secret from criminals and assassins is one thing; in real life, members of mob-fighting police units often do work undercover, and in some countries even wear masks on public raids. But there's no clear reason to keep their identities secret from the authorities they work with. It seems more like it's just perpetuating an established trope without considering the reasons for it.
And yes, yes, there is the pervasive trope of superheroes being "free" to take actions the police or FBI can't -- if not gunning down criminals on the spot, at least things like breaking and entering, illegal search, intimidation, that sort of thing. So there's still that pulpy wish-fulfillment angle of being free to act outside legal strictures. But realistically, those strictures exist for a reason, and acting outside them is a good way to get a case thrown out of court.
You know when Spider-Man leaves criminals wrapped in web for the police to pick up? Well, this is so wrong in so many ways that it would made the day for a defense attorney and I doubt that there would even be a trial (you could make the same reasoning for every vigilante who doesn't kill the criminals and leaves the rest of the work to the cops...)
There is a story about this.
The story is about the discovery of two webbed up thugs found near the scene of a robbery that led to a shop owner being put in a coma, but no witnesses or cameras in the area, save for Spider-Man.
The investigating NYPD officers are shown to be fed up with Spider-Man because him intercepting, beating up, and webbing up criminals, then leaving them to dry before the cops can respond has given way to "the Spider-Man Defense": criminals take advantage of Spidey's controversial public reputation and argue their way out of charges by saying that Spider-Man simply assaulted them for no good reason, and that they only happened to be in the vicinity of various crimes, even suggesting that the Spider-Man was the real culprit and was trying to frame them.
And since Spidey doesn't stick around to fill out any police reports, submit evidence, give testimony at trials, many criminals end up walking free because of the lack of clean and irrefutable evidence.
There is a story about this.
The story is about the discovery of two webbed up thugs found near the scene of a robbery that led to a shop owner being put in a coma, but no witnesses or cameras in the area, save for Spider-Man.
The investigating NYPD officers are shown to be fed up with Spider-Man because him intercepting, beating up, and webbing up criminals, then leaving them to dry before the cops can respond has given way to "the Spider-Man Defense": criminals take advantage of Spidey's controversial public reputation and argue their way out of charges by saying that Spider-Man simply assaulted them for no good reason, and that they only happened to be in the vicinity of various crimes, even suggesting that the Spider-Man was the real culprit and was trying to frame them.
And since Spidey doesn't stick around to fill out any police reports, submit evidence, give testimony at trials, many criminals end up walking free because of the lack of clean and irrefutable evidence.
Last edited:
might depend on the version.
In the Justice League carton from the 2000s they didn't know each others identities until the JL is forced underground (Star Cross was the episode iirc) though in typical fashion Batman knew them all.
Though it was came out early on that Batman and Superman knew each others when Superman asked if Bruce's shareholders knew about the money going for the watchtower.
Of course, because that had been established in the "World's Finest" crossover in The New Batman/Superman Adventures years earlier, when Superman and Batman first met. Superman used x-ray vision to "peek" under Batman's cowl, and Batman returned the favor through a tracker and binoculars.
Recently but not anymore, Lex Luthor was a member of the Justice League.
Secrets were kept.
Secrets were kept.
One could almost ague that the registration act in Civil War happened BECAUSE The Avengers are known to the world and were held liable by some for all the collateral damage of their deeds. If their identities had been secret, the government wouldn’t have known who to register.
It means dangerous jobs walk hand in hand with sacrifice, unless someone is so giddy about sharing / bringing a civilian into a world they will never be able to stand toe-to-toe against, that they are "prepared" for the high chance of a civilian
being killed. Its unrealistic--even for fantasy--and makes the hero seem very immature in failing to comprehend that.
Indeed. They want the heroes to act like some glorified summer camp director passing out S'mores.
I guess that is not possible, if "I hate secret identity" posts are any indicator.
Tell that to every Cop or Military Officer or Black Ops Agent who has gotten married or maintains relationships. They may not tell their families everything but they don't lie to them about EVERYTHING.
It's more to do with realizing how what started out as a harmless genre convention really isn't harmless if you think it through.
I don't see how just telling a person who you are close to that you are superhero would instantly put their life at risk. I'm sure there are probably plenty of undercover cops, Seal Team members, or CIA operatives who manage to have friends and families without them getting killed.
Sentinels. James Rhodes was a Squadron leader. Piloted mechs. No AI. They were rounding people up.
Anti-superpowers spinn ordinance. They took She Hulks powers away.
The Negative Zone prison. Mostly for super villains, but heroes who would not sign up were put there too. You had to register, even if they knew who you were.
France. Ben Grim fled to the City of lights to eat baguettes while the States burned. The US Government also "stole" 5 billion dollars from him.
Civilianizing. Firestar was a student. She had to register as a super hero, but she didn't have to join the 50 state initiative. She had medical issues. Her powers were giving her supercancer, but Marvel Boy stood firm beside her the whole time and he didn't have fight on the front line either.