To many Superman is the ultimate unrelatable protagonist, what with him being an alien, and the false perception that he is able to simply bulldoze through any problem he comes across. Not to mention that Superman is often held up as the paragon, one of the pillars of morality in the DC universe, which is probably why every second hack writer tries to do the “what if Superman turned evil” story at some point. All in all, this has given way to the opinion that the Man of Steel is too much of an alien god to be relatable to your average, human audience, and at times he has been written that way.

However, I believe that Superman can be entirely relatable, and it all lies in an aspect of the character that people choose to ignore…

The aspect that I am talking about is Clark Kent; but Clark Kent is Superman’s civilian identity, everyone knows that, so how can they be overlooking it? By putting Superman first and Clark second, to the point that some authors go out of their way to use Kal as his “real” name, further distancing him from potential audiences.

Much is made of Superman’s morality being too good, but the fact is that it is a very human sense of morality; it believes in the sorts of things that humans in general (and Americans specifically) tend to believe. Murder, theft and the like are bad, helping people in need is good, and to borrow from another hero (from a rival company!) for a moment, with great power comes great responsibility.

Clark came by this human sense of morality by living a regular human life. He grew up with normal human parents, went to a regular High School, had human friends, and dated a normal, human girl. This even extends into his adult life, as a lot of Clark’s friends (like Jimmy Olsen) are humans who he hangs out with when he’s not being Superman; in contrast to certain other DC characters whose main connections are made whilst in costume, and are sometimes based on this fact.

A prime example of this would be Batman, who has the largest supporting cast of any character in DC comics, yet most of those friendships are with other vigilantes and heroes. Only once those connections are formed with the cowls on does he allow them to see the face that lies beneath. Even then, he generally doesn’t hang out with Jim Gordon as Bruce Wayne.

All of Clark’s beliefs come from him living not just amongst humans, but as one of them.

This is why I believe that comparisons to Spider-man are apt, Clark may have come across his abilities naturally, but in the end he is a regular guy who gains great power, and chooses to use it for good; in contrast to the multitude who choose to use it selfishly. Sometimes he even struggles with the pressure, because even Superman wrestles with the notion of having so many lives in his hands.

Although Spider-man and Superman do come at this from two different directions. Whereas Peter has to struggle with the constant negativity of Marvel civilians, Superman has to contend with near reverence from the people of Metropolis. Which sounds like a weak problem, until you realise it puts pressure on him to always be perfect, all the time, and he’s never allowed to make a mistake, ever. Which is a problem, because even Superman can have a bad day, or make the wrong decision. Sometimes even Superman doesn’t know the right answer.

In the end, I believe that the view of Superman as being perfect is a veneer that Clark actively tries to uphold. For Clark Kent being Superman is a job, albeit one he does willingly; once he is in costume he is “on-duty”, and the personality he displays as Superman is a professional one he puts forth deliberately, in much the same way as a policeman or lawyer might be expected to.

Where Spider-man has the advantage here is in how his writers make sure to show us Peter Parker’s every day struggles, whereas Superman writers tend to gloss over it. Clark Kent has to work a job so he can make rent, most of his friends (and thus extended cast) like Jimmy Olsen are human. Not to mention instead of dating supermodels and sexy femme fatales, Superman’s most iconic relationship is with a co-worker; Lois Lane is a brilliant, and intelligent woman, but their relationship is still a lot more normal than those of most other heroes.

Although, now that I write this I find that all of these problem are very adult problems. So perhaps it is that Superman would be more relatable to grown-ups, rather than the teenagers comics usually aim for?

In my opinion, one of the best moves DC has made with the character in recent years, was when they made him a father in Rebirth. This change necessitated a a greater focus on Clark’s personal life, and his family life in particular. We got to see Clark going to a theme park with his wife and son, much like a normal father would, we got to see him being a normal person. And it made him far more human than his stint of walking the Earth in Grounded ever could.

Finally, in regard to the comments about Superman being too strong … I could just name the long list of characters that are on or above Superman’s power level, but I won’t. I will simply point out that stories are written with their lead character in mind, and the problems they face will always be tailored to them. So when a writer sits down to write a Superman story he’s going to come up with an obstacle applicable to him, whether that’s something straight-forward like a villain of equal strength, or a more abstract problem that can’t be beaten into submission.

To sum up, I feel like Superman would be more relatable to audiences if writers to learn more on the aspects of his life that he shares with regular people.