Another kiss by WW and Superman

[Nocturnus]

Has anyone actually read Action Comics here? Have you seen the guy? Lois Lane pretty much says she is ashamed of Clark, because while she could only think of news/stories, Clark was out there helping people. And as someone already mentioned, Diana flat out claims that she loves everyone.

These heroe do not only represent Justice and hope and commpassion. Superman and Wonder Woman essentially, in all honesty, "embodies" them. So DC decides to put these great champions together, who - no matter what happens will compromise, sacrifice and lay down their life for humanity. But what happens? They turn into evil a**holes, dictator and ruler of earth and skies... and the ONLY WAY they can ever be heroes again is... here it comes...

...is if they start screwing regular humans.



My 14 year old brother can come up with better logic than that. It boggles my mind how either fans of the characers would think/want something as shallow as this to happen. It's severly disturbing and quite sick.

[misslane38]

Could they tease some dark future scenario in which the story's resolution sees that potential future avoided? Perhaps. A shallow and overdone trope, but at least within the realm of imagination. But to actually happen, no. The idea that it could seems to be born, more than anything, out of a desire to see this relationship storyline end in tragedy just to throw dirt on the very idea of it. So there's something concrete to point to saying "See, Superman can't be with Wonder Woman or it'll turn him evil"; "See, Superman and Wonder Woman can't be with anyone other than Lois Lane and Steve Trevor because they'll turn evil". And I honestly can't imagine a more ham-fisted motivation for a writer. And in my gut I don't believe Johns has such spiteful intentions in mind with this story. Where it'll go I don't know, but I refuse to believe the motivation is making sure its known that two characters' romantic partners are limited because some will turn them evil, or make them care less about people they've sworn to protect.

At no point have I suggested that the endgame I saw for this storyline was anything as extreme as Superman and Wonder Woman turn into evil despots who don't care about humanity. I believe the only negative consequence I mentioned was an encroaching paternalistic attitude toward humans and bitterness caused by denying a desire of their hearts out of fear. I don't desire this outcome to prove anything about Lois or Steve. For me, it's about saying something about Diana and Clark; specifically, the importance of their love for humanity. I believe any story about Diana and Clark as a couple or as individuals should allow for them to demonstrate their love for humanity by having the courage to love and to express love to humans in the specific rather than settle for the abstract.

If two people can connect, I'd say it helps them both, no matter who they are or where they come from. And no way says two people like Clark Kent or Diana will isolate themselves if they get together. I just think it's out of character based on everything we have seen so far.

I'm not saying Diana and Clark will isolate themselves if they get together, though. I'm saying that Diana and Clark were already isolating themselves from humans before they got together, and the resulting feelings of alienation and loneliness are bringing them together. In other words, their relationship didn't cause the isolation, but rather the isolation caused the relationship. The only reason why Diana and Clark's connection is not equal to any significant connections they might have with humans is because both Diana and Clark love humans and crave connections with them. At this point, they are literally denying themselves something their heart wants because they are afraid.

This notion of humanity is so great is the biggest bs I have ever come across. Like what fanboii says, the Green Lantern Mythos does debunk a lot of what misslane is saying as well.

Debunk what? All I've been saying is that Superman and Wonder Woman want to have significant connections with humans but are denying themselves those connections out of fear. They aren't following their bliss as heroes do, which demonstrates they lack courage. I'm not suggesting humanity is great; I'm suggesting that Diana and Clark think humanity is great.

It's unfair to judge Diana's intentions and motivations on her culture or her and Superman on their DNA. There are so many stories about a protagonist choosing to think differently or choose a path that is not what his/her family or society envisioned etc. Diana even when she was brought up by the uptopian Amazons...had to go against the grain. She was a rebel in a way because inherently she was always going to be something special. That's why she became WW and choose to remain WW.

I don't doubt Diana's and Clark's good intentions. Nonetheless, I do think each of them are pushing away valuable sources of perspective and strength by limiting their interactions with the humans they care about either romantically or platonically. Superman and Wonder Woman love humans and have "human" emotions; they appreciate humans. They love and appreciate humans so much they want to have significant relationships with them as friends, lovers, mentors, co-workers, etc. Unfortunately, they are letting their love for humans drive them to push them away. They are purposefully limiting the contact and connections they have with ordinary humans, which they are not, and that sort of self-denying behavior is not healthy or productive in the long run. I don't believe it will lead them down the path of evil dictatorship, but I do think the kind of behavior we saw in Kingdom Come might be slightly more possible.

At the most basic...it's like saying no immigant who came to America ever adapted and got together with someone born here of a different race/religion etc. Or two immigrants of different cultures could meet in America and hook up. The human race are capable of finding great unity in each other and yet capable of shunning each other for just being different.

Yes, humans are capable of being just as isolationist and flawed. My thesis isn't specific to aliens and Amazons, but rather is in reference to the problematic decision any alienated individual could make to protect themselves from pain. Of course immigrants have established significant bonds with members of the majority culture or a culture different from their own. But do the same immigrants also push away people they care about or potentially may want to connect with because they are afraid? I will say, though, that the immigrant connecting with the individual of another culture isn't quite analogous, in my opinion, because they are still both "ordinary" on some level. Superman and Wonder Woman are god-like and famous. Thus maintaining strong bonds with those who do not share that experience is vital for maintaining a healthy perspective.

The long and short is I buy Diana's message. I buy Superman's message. I see in both some of the best aspects of humanity. Any man would be lucky to have Diana's love and could only benefit from it as far as I see it. Whether they have the balls, the time, the inclination, the ability to date her, keep her interest, brave her world, add something to enrich her as a character...is another thing. That is down to writing. Same goes for Superman and which ever woman he cares for. But it's just like any other relationship... be it human or meta. Emotion is emotion.

Emotion is emotion, and one of the emotions Diana and Clark are denying right now is the love they feel for humans. And while Diana and Clark can bond over their shared emotions, which are very human, they are never going to be able to get an ordinary human's perspective of them at their most exposed if they keep isolating themselves from the humans they love and appreciate. Diana and Clark should be capable of loving each other and being in love with each other while also having significant human relationships characterized by complete honesty and openness. Ideally, that is exactly what they should be doing. It really shouldn't be an either/or situation.

Grant Morrison...I don't have the exact quote... says Superman is relatable just on a huge scale...ie he walks the dog too...just he walks the dog in the galaxy. Azz has given Diana a disfunctional family with skeletons in the closet... just like many of us.

Isn't Morrison speaking meta-textually about how relatable Superman is to his audience? Human readers have perhaps the most intimate connection with Superman because we are granted access to nearly every aspect of his life and his thoughts, so I would say Morrison's quote actually supports the idea that being exposed to humans and having intimate connections with them is vital to maintaining his relatability.

While some may disagree on whether they like the books or not, the creators are being very clear...these new 52 characters are heroes who care for their family, friends and the world.

No one has argued that Superman and Wonder Woman do not care about their friends, family, and the world. I am suggesting that it is not a good idea to demonstrate that love by denying it and pushing it away out of fear. True love casts out fear and is worth any sacrifice. For example, some heroes are afraid to step out of the shadows because they were afraid of how the public would perceive them. A true hero overcomes that fear and shows herself to the world because she accepts the risk as a worthwhile one. Diana and Clark should be capable of demonstrating their love for their human friends beyond the abstract and beyond paternalistic overprotectiveness.

That could not wane no matter who they hooked up with. And I don't see two of the most iconic characters whose most basic message is about hope and love isolating themselves or turning evil.

Superman and Wonder Woman are already isolated; a conversation about their isolation was the prelude to their first kiss. Whether their isolation will lead them down an evil path is doubtful, but I do think it will cause them some trouble in the future.

The suggestion they need only Steve and Lois to be who they are? If that is the case they should just hand over the cape and the lasso to someone else.

No one is suggesting they need only Steve and Lois to be who they are. I am suggesting they need significant human connections, in general. Superman and Wonder Woman are people who care about Lois and Steve, so it actually would be an act of self-denial to refuse that love and connection out of fear. They are not following their bliss, as it were.

[Namtab]

Exactly. Humanity or humanism isn't about whether you're genetically human. Superman and Wonder Woman are more humanistic than many humans. Relationships are a whole different matter because it's about personal needs in which Superman and Wonder Woman's superhero professions and powers come into play. It shouldn't affect their philosophy, world-view, or passions.

Yeah. We always create our gods in our image. We give them human personalities and and very human problems (albeit, flashier). It really doesn't matter that Kal is a god-powerful alien from Krypton and Diana is a Demigod.

[misslane38]

Has anyone actually read Action Comics here? Have you seen the guy? Lois Lane pretty much says she is ashamed of Clark, because while she could only think of news/stories, Clark was out there helping people. And as someone already mentioned, Diana flat out claims that she loves everyone.

If you had "actually read Action Comics" you would have realized that Lois never "pretty much says" anything like "she is ashamed of Clark" as you erroneously suggest. What Lois actually said was "It was a gas main explosion--big enought to rock buildings for blocks around. My first thought was to get the story: What happened? What caused it? Who was responsible? But Clark's first thought was to help people. I have to say, I felt ashamed of myself. We both got the front page for our papers that day--after we helped the bystanders" (Action Comics #10). Later, in a flashback issue (Action Comics #0) readers learn that the attitude Lois spoke so admirably about was actually something his first newspaper editor, George Taylor, had told him when he was hired at The Daily Star. "I'll tell you what my first editor told me, Clark. The story never comes before the people of the story." All of which is decidedly beside the point I've been making which isn't about caring about humans on a social justice level, but on a personal level such as the intimate connections one makes with friends, lovers, and family.

These heroe do not only represent Justice and hope and commpassion. Superman and Wonder Woman essentially, in all honesty, "embodies" them.

To embody true heroism, in my view, heroes need to act heroically both in their missions and in their personal lives. Otherwise they are hypocrites. Heroism, to me, is about facing one's fears, so when someone like Wonder Woman and Superman make decisions based on fear -- specifically their fear of any grief they might have over additional losses of those they love -- they are not acting courageously and heroically. It is hypocritical and counterproductive for these heroes to want to inspire humanity to be more like them and do the right thing by standing up to the bullies in their own lives as people like Martin Luther King Jr. did, yet when they show the guts and moral fiber to do so they want them to stand down for their own protection. You say Superman and Wonder Woman represent hope, and what I'm saying is Diana preventing Steve from being the hero he wanted to be and both Diana and Clark keeping their human loved ones at a safe distance so they don't have to experience their loss are not the actions of hopeful people.

So DC decides to put these great champions together, who - no matter what happens will compromise, sacrifice and lay down their life for humanity. But what happens? They turn into evil a**holes, dictator and ruler of earth and skies... and the ONLY WAY they can ever be heroes again is... here it comes...

Again, I haven't suggested they'll become dictators.

My 14 year old brother can come up with better logic than that. It boggles my mind how either fans of the characers would think/want something as shallow as this to happen. It's severly disturbing and quite sick.

Engaging in a discussion where you misquote the source material, mischaracterize your opposition's points, and throw all manner of personal insults at someone just for having a different opinion undermines your commentary here. If you must resort to such tactics it only serves to weaken your argument.

Yeah. We always create our gods in our image. We give them human personalities and and very human problems (albeit, flashier). It really doesn't matter that Kal is a god-powerful alien from Krypton and Diana is a Demigod.

Right, they have problems that resemble the problems of humans. Thus, I as a human am capable of evaluating their behavior by human standards. Even by human standards, pushing away people you obviously care about out of fear is cowardly and un-heroic.

[Namtab]

Right, they have problems that resemble the problems of humans. Thus, I as a human am capable of evaluating their behavior by human standards. Even by human standards, pushing away people you obviously care about out of fear is cowardly and un-heroic.

That sounds very human to me, and is an often used theme in super-hero comics.

[Auguste Dupin]

Right, they have problems that resemble the problems of humans. Thus, I as a human am capable of evaluating their behavior by human standards. Even by human standards, pushing away people you obviously care about out of fear is cowardly and un-heroic.

One could argue it would be very out of place and judgemental of you, not to mention based on a set of values that isn't necessarily universally accepted (were we to talk about real persons that is). Keeping secrets has never been a crime, especially towards people you are not romantically related to, like it's the case for Clark. It's up to him to decide wether or not he "trusts" Lois enough with her secret If she decides to move on before he feels at ease enough to confide (and moving on would imply that she was trying to have a relation with Clark, which as far as we know, isn't the case), well, too bad for him, that doesn't make it cowardly. As for Diana, considering she just had been left to believe Steve had been murdered just to get to her when she took her decision, one can only acknowledge that her reaction was understandable, regardless of wether or not it was the right one (not to mention the "she's 23" thing).

[Nocturnus]

@misslane38
Yeah I meant to say "myself" not Clark, I'm sorry but typing on a cellphone can be a bother. That "misquote" was not intentional. The rest of it still stands. I've only simplfied what many "fans" apparently wants Superman and Wonder Woman to become, unless they are with human partners.That notion is as I've said, sick.

You don't have to have romantic relation with humans to appreciate all things human. Clark was raised by loving parents, he had friends as he grew up and possibly romance too if we consider Lana. So if he had no problem then, why will it suddenly become an issue when he gets together with someone he admires/attracted to? Don't tell me how Superman needs a constant grounding/anchoring/baby sitting by humans to continue to funtion as a 'courageous' hero.

[SteveGus]

You don't have to have romantic relation with humans to appreciate all things human. Clark was raised by loving parents, he had friends as he grew up and possibly romance too if we consider Lana. So if he had no problem then, why will it suddenly become an issue when he gets together with someone he admires/attracted to? Don't tell me how Superman needs a constant grounding/anchoring/baby sitting by humans to continue to funtion as a 'courageous' hero.

No. And frankly, I'm afraid that Wonder Woman is going to be kicked in the mud some more as the Trinity War event rolls out.

First, Booster Gold seems to think that a WW/Superman relationship portends some kind of catastrophe that he was supposed to head off.

More importantly, Amazons aren't allowed to be good guys in nuDC. Exoristos has some kind of dark secret, and is apparently the chosen vehicle to reintroduce Eclipso. The rest are pirates and mass murderers. Diana is supposedly the one exception, except that she's a loose cannon (Justice League) and a target for state surveillance (Batwoman).

[Nocturnus]

No. And frankly, I'm afraid that Wonder Woman is going to be kicked in the mud some more as the Trinity War event rolls out.

First, Booster Gold seems to think that a WW/Superman relationship portends some kind of catastrophe that he was supposed to head off.

More importantly, Amazons aren't allowed to be good guys in nuDC. Exoristos has some kind of dark secret, and is apparently the chosen vehicle to reintroduce Eclipso. The rest are pirates and mass murderers. Diana is supposedly the one exception, except that she's a loose cannon (Justice League) and a target for state surveillance (Batwoman).

Yeah I can deal with that. Surely, sounds interesting and I'll read the hell out of it to find out how things play out. Who's to say that their relationship isn't something that that shapes them and wisen them in the process? The story has many potential and certainly doesn't have to end up as cliche'd as people are making it out to be.

[misslane38]

That sounds very human to me, and is an often used theme in super-hero comics.

As has been pointed out, something being human doesn't equate to a universal good. Saying what Superman and Wonder Woman are doing is human isn't an excuse for bad behavior, and it's used as a theme in superhero comics to create conflict and drama. However, the point of narratives is for characters to resolve those essential conflicts. In comics, this journey is often elongated -- sometimes for such a frustratingly long time that the heroes could be said to have a Peter Pan complex -- but the key is to reflect on and overcome these personal issues in order to become fully actualized. It is in fact, the classic hero's journey to do this. Thus, it may be human but even humans are capable of courage and heroism that goes beyond what I'm seeing in Clark and Diana at present.

One could argue it would be very out of place and judgemental of you, not to mention based on a set of values that isn't necessarily universally accepted (were we to talk about real persons that is). Keeping secrets has never been a crime, especially towards people you are not romantically related to, like it's the case for Clark. It's up to him to decide wether or not he "trusts" Lois enough with her secret If she decides to move on before he feels at ease enough to confide (and moving on would imply that she was trying to have a relation with Clark, which as far as we know, isn't the case), well, too bad for him, that doesn't make it cowardly.

A crime? I said it was selfish and cowardly, which it is. Diana has no secrets to keep from Steve, so there's no issue of trust there and she did not express her reasons for pushing him away as relating to anything other than her desire not to see him come to harm. With Superman, we've gotten even less insight. In Justice League #12 he tells Diana he has to keep secrets, and in Superman #3 he mopes about not being able to answer Lois' calls for openness, but he never explicitly shares with us or anyone the reasons for his secrecy, if I recall. We are left to assume -- based on the characterization of Superman in other eras -- that his motivation is to protect Lois. Problem is, the New 52 has gone out of its way to remove the traditional reasons for this worry. Lois doesn't have a public relationship with Superman, for one, and she doesn't to find the reporter, Clark Kent, nearly as unappealing as her previous incarnations did. Moreover, Superman spoke with contentment to Lois' father General Lane that her promotion to TV news producer because it meant she wasn't in the line of fire as much as a boots on the ground investigative reporter taking the risks he did as Clark just to keep up with him as her journalistic rival. In short, the comics have yet to actually provide a solid explanation for why Superman is so reluctant to open up to Lois. It certainly hasn't been presented as a matter of trust at all.

It is cowardly for Superman to not follow his heart. This is what Alan Moore thought when he had Superman in What Ever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? state outright on the eve of his possible doom, "[Lois and Lana] have wasted their love on me, while I couldn't let myself love either of them the way they deserved. I wish I had explained. I wish I hadn't been such a coward." It was the message in Smallville's "Promise" (except Clark was dealing with his feelings for Lana at the time):

Clark: If Lana didn't want to marry Lex, she wouldn't.
Chloe: Lana's not my hero, Clark -- you are. And this whole idea that you're still hiding who you really are, that you're giving up the one person that you totally love --
Clark: I'm protecting her.
Chloe: [ Sarcastic ] Good job. She's marrying a monster and trapping herself into a loveless life.
Clark: Chloe, you think this is easy for me?
Chloe: I think it's easier than getting hurt. You don't hesitate to run into a burning building or jump in front of a bullet because nothing can penetrate that iron flesh of yours. But the one time saving Lana means putting your heart on the line, the Man of Steel is nowhere to be found.
Clark: Letting Lana go is the hardest thing I've ever had to do, Chloe. If you don't know that, then you don't know me as well as I thought you did.

Later with his mother...

Clark: You know, I can't help but wonder... ..if all those things I told myself -- that knowing the truth about me would be too much for Lana to handle, if she knew my secret she'd be in danger - what if I just made up all those excuses because I was scared?
Martha: [ Smiling ] Then you'd be just like the rest of us.
Clark: What do you mean?
Martha: Your father and I almost didn't get married. I broke it off after a year. We had a horrible argument, and I thought I'd never see him again. You know, we came from such different worlds. Our families, the paths we were on -- everything was stacked against us.
Clark: Then why'd you get back together?
Martha: Because I... I couldn't stop thinking about him.
Clark: What if I take that risk... and Lana really is happy with Lex?
Martha: All I can tell you Clark is that, if I hadn't taken that chance, I would have lost everything that's ever meant something to me.

As for Diana, considering she just had been left to believe Steve had been murdered just to get to her when she took her decision, one can only acknowledge that her reaction was understandable, regardless of wether or not it was the right one (not to mention the "she's 23" thing).

I never said Diana's actions and the feelings which motivated them weren't sympathetic. I am saying that feelings that are understandable and sympathetic don't equal courageous and right. Reminding me of the youthfulness of these characters only highlights to me the potential direction this arc might go. These characters are young, and at the start of their hero's journey. Therefore, these experiences or youthful missteps are likely meant to teach them something valuable about themselves so that they can grow. My feeling is that whatever Superman and Wonder Woman experience while exploring a relationship with each other will ultimately give them the wisdom and maturity that will make them grow out of each other and into people and attitudes that suit them and befit their status as heroic individuals who overcome their fears.

[misslane38]

@misslane38
Yeah I meant to say "myself" not Clark, I'm sorry but typing on a cellphone can be a bother. That "misquote" was not intentional. The rest of it still stands. I've only simplfied what many "fans" apparently wants Superman and Wonder Woman to become, unless they are with human partners.That notion is as I've said, sick.

Become what? What do you think people "want" to see become of Superman and Wonder Woman? I think I've only suggested there's a potential for Superman and Wonder Woman's bonding to have a negative consequences. Already in Justice League #12 we see them both acknowledge they are drawn to each other because they don't feel they can connect with the humans their human emotion filled hearts desire. Now, I've been told by fans of this couple here in this thread that because Superman and Wonder Woman have these human emotions they are capable of relating to humans just fine regardless of whether those humans are their love interests or not. Yet, if that is true then any arguments about Superman and Wonder Woman's compatibility that posit that Diana is better for Clark because she can understand him better cannot apply. If Superman and Wonder Woman proceed with their relationship believing that they are so different that humans not only cannot understand them and should not be permitted to follow their own heroic instincts to risk their own lives in the service of a greater good, then their relationship and its survival in their hearts will be based on a perception of themselves as the untouchable "other" who must only engage with humans on a superficial level. For if they were to abandon that perspective, they would no longer feel the isolation and alienation which drew them to each other in the first place.

You don't have to have romantic relation with humans to appreciate all things human. Clark was raised by loving parents, he had friends as he grew up and possibly romance too if we consider Lana. So if he had no problem then, why will it suddenly become an issue when he gets together with someone he admires/attracted to? Don't tell me how Superman needs a constant grounding/anchoring/baby sitting by humans to continue to funtion as a 'courageous' hero.

It is because Superman had that upbringing that he is likely attracted to a human like Lois so much. It is a problem now because instead of following his heart, Clark is following his fears, which is not heroic. His admiration and attraction to Lois was based on her mind and her courage as a reporter (see: Action Comics #0) before he'd ever met her, while the only hints of attraction we got from Superman and Wonder Woman prior to their kiss was his saying about her "You're strong." He and Diana are bonding over their sense of otherness and because they feel isolated and alienated from the humans they care about. The part of Superman and Wonder Woman that loves humanity is what made them like Steve and Lois to begin with, so pushing them away out of sense of their own sense of otherness and paternalism currently makes the Superman and Wonder Woman relationship rooted in fear and alienation. It is, therefore, not just my suspicion that this could be a problem or an area of possible growth for these characters. It is, in fact, what I believe the narrative itself has explicitly presented as the truth.

The best way to dispel this, is to do what is not being done currently and have Clark and Diana allow Steve and Lois to get closer to them and act heroically despite the danger and still prefer to be with each other. Was this not the dynamic which existed in the Post-Crisis when Superman was married to Lois yet also had open and strong bonds with his Justice League teammates? As long as the New 52 operates on an either/or mentality, where it is either no intimacy with anyone or just no intimacy with humans, then the narrative will be suggesting the basis of Superman and Wonder Woman's bond and attraction is their fear-based refusal to act on their own human emotions of love for humans and to allow humans to follow in their footsteps.

Remember this sentiment, seen in All Star Superman and repeated in Man of Steel? "You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you. They will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders." What I see Superman and Wonder Woman doing right now is wanting, in theory, for humans to be inspired by them that they would follow them in the sun, but rejecting them once humans start acting on that impulse in reality. This is especially true of Diana's treatment of Steve. She essentially told Steve, who wanted to join her in the sun, that he could not do it in the way that he wanted and chosen. The implicit message, as I see it, is that Superman and Wonder Woman feel the sun, or ideal that they as heroes embody and provide as inspiration, burns too hot and too brightly for humans to ever be allowed to fully join them. And if this is not how they really feel, then the deeper and more personal character based message is that such a mindset is only a psychological defense mechanism -- an excuse -- much like Clark on Smallville spoke to Chloe and Martha about, which means deep down there is nothing noble about it. It's just immaturity and fear, and while I can sympathize with these young and inexperienced heroes dealing with these difficult emotions, I also want to see them grow out of them to become stronger and more self-actualized.

[brettc1]

Remember this sentiment, seen in All Star Superman and repeated in Man of Steel? "You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you. They will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders." What I see Superman and Wonder Woman doing right now is wanting, in theory, for humans to be inspired by them that they would follow them in the sun, but rejecting them once humans start acting on that impulse in reality. This is especially true of Diana's treatment of Steve. She essentially told Steve, who wanted to join her in the sun, that he could not do it in the way that he wanted and chosen. The implicit message, as I see it, is that Superman and Wonder Woman feel the sun, or ideal that they as heroes embody and provide as inspiration, burns too hot and too brightly for humans to ever be allowed to fully join them. And if this is not how they really feel, then the deeper and more personal character based message is that such a mindset is only a psychological defense mechanism -- an excuse -- much like Clark on Smallville spoke to Chloe and Martha about, which means deep down there is nothing noble about it. It's just immaturity and fear, and while I can sympathize with these young and inexperienced heroes dealing with these difficult emotions, I also want to see them grow out of them to become stronger and more self-actualized.

Nicely put.

The mindset right now is there is us and there is them.

And when it ends, how does it not end badly? Who breaks up with Superman or Wonder Woman? You could ask why does it have to end, but the first person you ask should be Lois Lane.

[misslane38]

And when it ends, how does it not end badly? Who breaks up with Superman or Wonder Woman? You could ask why does it have to end, but the first person you ask should be Lois Lane.

Well, I suppose it could end badly. I'm more inclined to think Diana and Clark will be presented with a difficult trial that will test them, perhaps they will even make a few mistakes, but ultimately the result could be a happy ending. If the wisdom and maturity they gain from this trial strengthens their bond while also opening them up to deeper human connections, then that's one form their happy ending might take. Another happy ending, however, could be a Clark and Diana whose response to their trial is to part amicably in order to take a chance on someone else. Lois could be the endgame for Superman, but she doesn't have to be the next woman he takes a chance on. I see both Diana's and Clark's narratives as ones that could accommodate multiple love interests as valuable learning experiences on the way to whatever endpoints exist in their respective futures.

[Outside_85]

Exoristos has some kind of dark secret, and is apparently the chosen vehicle to reintroduce Eclipso.

Her name is directly translated into Exile, that she has some wrong in her past shouldn't be at all surprising. As for being a vehicle...well so far she hasn't grown a moonface and there is no real telling that she's ever meant to become possessed, perhaps she's just to take the diamond out and leave it for someone else to find?

Diana is supposedly the one exception, except that she's a loose cannon (Justice League) and a target for state surveillance (Batwoman).

Does that really surprise you that an agency that's so shady it can have a director with invisible skin and organs and who blackmails people into working for it would want to keep tabs on, and would very likely love to control, a person that could level a city?

[Namtab]

As has been pointed out, something being human doesn't equate to a universal good. Saying what Superman and Wonder Woman are doing is human isn't an excuse for bad behavior, and it's used as a theme in superhero comics to create conflict and drama. However, the point of narratives is for characters to resolve those essential conflicts.

True, but despite comics being serialized fiction, by many different writers, each writer will often write their run as though it's almost a island unto itself. So the characterization of writer X won't always match up with writer Y, despite them writing the same character(s), right after one another. What you see as bad behavior could be something the characters simply have not properly resolved yet. Give them time to right their wrongs, instead of looking at what came before from a different writer.

In comics, this journey is often elongated -- sometimes for such a frustratingly long time that the heroes could be said to have a Peter Pan complex -- but the key is to reflect on and overcome these personal issues in order to become fully actualized. It is in fact, the classic hero's journey to do this. Thus, it may be human but even humans are capable of courage and heroism that goes beyond what I'm seeing in Clark and Diana at present.

Also, just because a character or a real life person, has moments of courage and heroism doesn't mean they won't still have moments of doubt and fear. Life has ups and downs; shining moments and times of regret.