Another kiss by WW and Superman

[brettc1]

Sorry, Mr Brett if I offended you.
I see you are a sucker for the normal guy to win the girl. I am a sucker for the abnormal one to do so. Supes has had way more stress than Steve if we look at the way Superman has been treated. Tortured by the government no less. Steve had done some underhanded things behind the League's back. Does Diana know what he has been doing or how he sees her and her allies while he was their liaison? Funny seemed to be when she broke up with him too. I don't like WW or the JL being an instrument of the government.

Hulk AND Thor are equally awesome. :)

I am sure you had no intention to offend. But please don't call me Mister - only my students need to do that LOL. Brett will be fine.

I had no idea that Clark was tortured - shocking, but no particuarly suprising. I am sure Steve has done some less than open things, but then so has this guy, another fav of mine.



And of course we see Steve gets some pretty bad treatment as well in Justice League. Yes, Superman is supposed to be the ultimate male hero and we all bow as his shadow passes. Its great the way he has saved the world a dozen times over but I would not accept that makes him better than a New York firefighter. For my part, I dont think much of the idea that every guy in the DC universe only has his life partner becuase Superman wasn't interested in her, and all the women not with Superman settled for what they could get.

Even though in the EverQueens case that is probably close to the truth.

[misslane38]

But I do think it unfair to condemn a book one is not reading.

I have not condemned the New 52 Wonder Woman book; I've been critical of it based on specific knowledge of objective facts about the narrative (e.g. Zeus is Diana's father, the Amazons are rapists). Some erudite critics share my views, so I'm hardly an outlier.

[Gaelforce]

If someone wishes to draw conclusions on a book based on reviews, blogs, flipping through it, looking at the cover, solicits, etc., it is their right to do so and express an opinion based on that information.

Feel free to debate the opinion without passing judgement on the poster, please :)

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Darwin was a hack.

Word.

10char.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

The issue was never about having friendships. It’s about having close, open relationships with these people. Ma and Pa Kent are dead. Lana has been MIA since one measly back up issue by Sholly Fisch nearly a year ago and so has Pete Ross. By Clark and Diana’s own admission in Justice League #12 they do not feel close to anyone. They do not feel like they belong or are a part of the human world. They see themselves as too different and too dangerous to get as close as they would like to humans, which means they have currently foreclosed the possibility of ever connecting with humans beyond superficial friendships.

What is it then? Friends or lovers? Because the bolded part can be used to define either of those relationships. In that sense, I must point out the potential contradiciton in your words. A friendship can be described as a close, open relationship. In this case with the phrase "with these people" you mean humans, which has been abundantly clear throughout the course of this thread. And that would fall in line with what I've been saying. But since you're saying that it is not about friendship, the only option left is romance... With humans. Which takes me to the next quote.

I never said any of what you just said. You’ve just created a straw man. For example, I never said Superman “can only be attracted to humans.” I said that it was his humanity and love of humanity that likely contributed to Lois Lane’s appeal to him. He fell in love with her words and her brain before he ever met her, because she was mirroring his human side’s own behavior as the intrepid reporter for The Daily Star, Clark Kent. This is all intratextual, however. On a metatextual level, the reason it’s been so important for Superman to have a human love interest is to provide a symbolic representation of his love for humanity. As I read recently on Twitter, Superman loved humanity so much he married a human. Myths are often said to work on an archetypal and symbolic level. According to mythologist, Joseph Campbell, myths traditionally have the hero unite in marriage with someone who represents the union of two worlds and resolves the dichotomies in the hero’s life. One of Superman’s primary themes and conflicts is the balance between alien and human, hero and civilian. Reconciling those forces in a yin and yang type bond with a human, like Lois, therefore fits neatly into other tales of lovers from different worlds like Arwen and Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings.

And here we are. Keyword here being "traditionally". While it's true what the mythologist said, traditionally doesn't mean "exclusively". And while Superman can be catalogued as a modern myth (in a way), that doesn't mean the myth of Superman has to comply with whatever parameters the mythologist say (this, after all, is comic books, in this case with a sci-fi component). And while you never said that Superman should only be attracted to humans, what you do say is that he must get romantically linked with a human woman (in this case Lois), which is simply not true.

Thanks for sharing this true but completely irrelevant bit of information. I have not questions Clark’s values at all. However, if you’re going to bring up the Kents consider this: the Kents took a huge risk welcoming a baby boy from a spaceship into their home. They could risk losing him to people eager to exploit him or getting hurt by the boy himself. Yet, these people who for so long were upset by their inability to have a baby to love (much like Superman’s longing for love) took the risk to welcome the baby Kal-El into their home and into their hearts out of love -- true, fearless, love of someone so different from themselves.

Oh, you can think it is as irrelevant as you want, but the fact is that Superman won't lose his humanity exactly because of that. And love can flourish anywhere, even between an alien god and an amazonian princess.

If what sparked their relationship was loneliness, then it suggests that their relationship must persist with the causes of that loneliness firmly in place unless they are able to develop secondary reasons to fuel the flame long term. I also simply do not like the idea of their relationship acting as some sort of defense mechanism against actually examining the flaws that brought them together. I would need Superman and Wonder Woman to admit they are being cowardly and find a way to face those fears. If they can do that, and there is still a spark between them, then I’d say they’d passed a significant test. Otherwise, their relationship would continue to have a questionable foundation in my eyes.

While I do not agree on their relationship being a mere defense mechanism, I do agree with you on them passing that test.

Since I have no idea what the nature of Diana’s quest for Eros’ wisdom regarding her feelings for Superman will be, it happening doesn’t affect my thoughts on this matter.

Isn't Eros the god of love? You're right, though, about not knowing what will transpire from that meeting.

Never said they had to be romantic. I’d prefer Superman to be with Lois romantically, but I never said it had to happen. I’d like to see Superman and Wonder Woman capable of maturing beyond the fears that brought them together, and yet remain together for other reasons, in order for me to see them as true lovers that deserve to go the distance and be called heroes. If their relationships with humans remain static, then their romance, such as it is, will continue to look like a means of avoidance.

See above.

Clark gets along with them okay, but Diana doesn’t seem to have any human friends, and they do have to open up to them if their stated reason for feeling so lonely and alienated in Justice League #12, when they kissed, is precisely the lack of openness with those they consider friends. It’s not me who is saying they have to open up to feel a connection, in other words, it’s the characters themselves.

The way I see it, Superman thinks that by letting said any friend in on his secret - which would be the ultimate reveal and what he was referring to in his conversation with Diana - would turn him or her (or them) into a target for his many enemies, which is understandable. However, if he finds that one person he can share his secret with, then so be it. Is that the kind of openness you'd want from him? And there's what Auguste (I think) said, he doesn't have to open up to anyone if he so desires. And he won't be any less "human" for it. Also, he can talk and open up about his life as Clark and be great friends with those people. In the case of Jimmy, he seems to be great friends with him.

If you’re going to say there’s more to it, then wouldn’t it be good to actually share your insight?

I simply didn't want to at the time. The whole All-StarSuperman/Man Of Steel phrase means that Superman will set an example for us to aspire towards. A set of values and goals we all can reach, but haven't yet. We will stumble and fall along the way, but in the end we will join them being the best we can be.

I went from liking Chloe to hating her to tolerating her. Allison Mack did a guest stint on the FX show Wilfred and is currently doing nothing notable other than dating a guy who works for Invisible Children and tweeting Instagram pictures of herself with said boyfriend or quotes from Gandhi. She’s also a prominent member of a cult called NXIVM which is notorious for having a sexual deviant and fraudster as its leader.

Wow. I had no idea about that cult. I'll have to get some info on it. May I ask what Wilfred and Invisible Children are all about?

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Well, actually, we are not monkey's descendants. Humans and monkeys share the same ancestor, we're cousins. We seem more evolved, but on the other hand we created the criterias of evolution so we could put ourselves on the top of it.

Oh, I should have said apes. Agreed on the evolution criteria.

[Outside_85]

Oh, I should have said apes. Agreed on the evolution criteria.

We are all children of Grodd :D

[brettc1]

What is it then? Friends or lovers? Because the bolded part can be used to define either of those relationships. In that sense, I must point out the potential contradiciton in your words. A friendship can be described as a close, open relationship. In this case with the phrase "with these people" you mean humans, which has been abundantly clear throughout the course of this thread. And that would fall in line with what I've been saying. But since you're saying that it is not about friendship, the only option left is romance... With humans. Which takes me to the next quote.



And here we are. Keyword here being "traditionally". While it's true what the mythologist said, traditionally doesn't mean "exclusively". And while Superman can be catalogued as a modern myth (in a way), that doesn't mean the myth of Superman has to comply with whatever parameters the mythologist say (this, after all, is comic books, in this case with a sci-fi component). And while you never said that Superman should only be attracted to humans, what you do say is that he must get romantically linked with a human woman (in this case Lois), which is simply not true.

I believe it will nevertheless prove key.

Oh, you can think it is as irrelevant as you want, but the fact is that Superman won't lose his humanity exactly because of that.

Why not?

A good deal of time has been spend talking about change and flexibility, but it is interesting that so many people think that you can take Superman's character, put it in a radically different context, and that everything will still be exactly the same. Ie, you can replace Lois with Wonder Woman and Clark is not in any way different. He will do and say and think all the same things as he did in the relationship with Lois, there will just be a lot more flying and sex in orbit and a lot less rescues.

Which it me seems very very odd. I can tell you as a married man I am not the same person I was pre-marriage living with a wife. Any man with a survival instinct will tell you the same.

The thing with the Lois relationship was - Clark would go out, be Superman, and then come home and be human. He would talk about human things with Lois, the stuff going on with her and their mutual friends, etc. The human problems and truimphs of his life as Clark Kent.

Right now that cannot happen with Diana. For starters, she doesnt know any of Clark's human friends. How is that going to work? She doesnt have a secret id. Will Clark announce he is dating Wonder Woman? Or is he going to keep the most important relationship of his life a secret from the human friends in his life?

So when they get together right now they will talk about... what? Their common ground is super-hero stuff. Diana could teach him about the Amazons but that is not much of a help in many ways [and the conversation about the sex/murder raids is going to be HELL-A-interesting]. Clark could talk to her about people she doesn't know and at the moment can never meet? Under these circumstances the idea that Clark's perspective cannot change seems rather optimistic. He acts like a regular person because he was raised by them AND spends most of his time with them. But people can change. Again, I used to spend a lot of time and Church and no i don't. The experience of not spending time at Church means I am a different person than I was a decade ago.

So he goes out and spends time as Superman, and then comes home and spends time with his super-girlfriend away from other ordinary humans? Hmmmm.

What I am saying is, from a writing point of view there is simply no point to putting these characters in a different relationship and then just using it to have sex scenes up in the clouds. Having a long term relationship with Diana is different than having a long term relationship with Lois and therefor logic demands that Superman cannot be the same as in the Lois scenario. The same goes for Wonder Woman. I beleive that if a person of average creativity like myself can contemplate that the professional writers at DC are going to speculate about it and want to explore it. Drama demands complications, and with the current trend for heroes to spend as much or more fighting each other as villains those complications could be very very interesting.

[misslane38]

What is it then? Friends or lovers? Because the bolded part can be used to define either of those relationships. In that sense, I must point out the potential contradiciton in your words. A friendship can be described as a close, open relationship. In this case with the phrase "with these people" you mean humans, which has been abundantly clear throughout the course of this thread. And that would fall in line with what I've been saying. But since you're saying that it is not about friendship, the only option left is romance... With humans. Which takes me to the next quote.

What is it? It's exactly what I said it was: it's about Clark and Diana having more than just friendships like the friendships they have with Lois and Jimmy. It's about having open, honest, deep, and complex relationships with humans whether those relationships are romantic or platonic.

And here we are. Keyword here being "traditionally". While it's true what the mythologist said, traditionally doesn't mean "exclusively". And while Superman can be catalogued as a modern myth (in a way), that doesn't mean the myth of Superman has to comply with whatever parameters the mythologist say (this, after all, is comic books, in this case with a sci-fi component). And while you never said that Superman should only be attracted to humans, what you do say is that he must get romantically linked with a human woman (in this case Lois), which is simply not true.

Traditionally is being used to describe a consistent and transcendent component of mythology that reaches back centuries upon centuries across every culture on this planet. And we're talking about the preeminent scholar of all myth making such a judgment. Great myths are about heroes reconciling the internal and external conflicts central to their lives; they're about integration of identity and of worlds. Many of the great religions are founded upon narratives of the joining together of god and man. The Greek myth of Cupid (Eros) and Psyche is another profound tale of a god choosing a human mate. Superman mythology, in my opinion, is best served by ultimately uniting alien and human. It says something extraordinarily profound that Superman loves humanity so much that he would marry a human. As a man who possesses god-like power, Superman could choose anyone. By choosing a vulnerable and imperfect human, Superman symbolically demonstrates that he sees humans as his equals. To pair up two idealized heroes negates that message. It muddies the myth in a profoundly problematic manner. So, to be clear, Superman can absolutely be attracted to non-humans, but I believe his soul mate and true love should ultimately be an ordinary human.

Oh, you can think it is as irrelevant as you want, but the fact is that Superman won't lose his humanity exactly because of that. And love can flourish anywhere, even between an alien god and an amazonian princess.

Sure, love can flourish, but is it that love his first choice? Clark wants Lois -- a human -- yet believes he can never have her. He is afraid to get close to her; to confess his secret identity and secret feelings. In his alienation and isolation, he has turned to a fellow hero whose own experience with a human mirrors his own. Fear, in short, has driven this man and woman together. What a poor foundation for love. Can love still grow? Yes, I believe there's a chance. But that love will never grow unless fear is overcome. If Diana and Clark can help each other mature and grow into heroes with emotional courage to reach out and expose themselves emotionally to the humans they care about, then that is a true testament to them as individuals and as a couple. And, if connecting with the humans they pushed away leads to love with those humans, then it is because Diana and Clark have truly followed their bliss.

While I do not agree on their relationship being a mere defense mechanism, I do agree with you on them passing that test.

How does it not look like a relationship borne out of a desire to assuage feelings of alienation and loneliness?

Isn't Eros the god of love? You're right, though, about not knowing what will transpire from that meeting.

Yes, he is. Previously, during an earlier special Valentine's Day issue feature Superman, Wonder Woman, Lois, Steve, and Eros, love did not blossom between Diana and Clark. Will history repeat itself? I don't know. I do know that Eros in New 52 is hard to read, since he seems loosely based on the Greek myth. Eros, as I mentioned previously, is also well-known for marrying a human.

The way I see it, Superman thinks that by letting said any friend in on his secret - which would be the ultimate reveal and what he was referring to in his conversation with Diana - would turn him or her (or them) into a target for his many enemies, which is understandable.

It's understandable yet cowardly.

However, if he finds that one person he can share his secret with, then so be it. Is that the kind of openness you'd want from him?

Yes, I do. Because I believe Clark wants and desires that sort of openness with his friends.

And there's what Auguste (I think) said, he doesn't have to open up to anyone if he so desires. And he won't be any less "human" for it. Also, he can talk and open up about his life as Clark and be great friends with those people. In the case of Jimmy, he seems to be great friends with him.

Clark does desire to open up to the friends in his life, but he feels he cannot because he is afraid. Clark wouldn't be less human for not opening up; I never said he would. What I've said is that Clark is a man who loves humanity, appreciates humanity, and sees himself as at least an honorary member of humanity. His own heart, which is composed of these elements, is attracted to humans; he wants to connect with humans but he has disconnected himself from them. Clark is friends with Jimmy, but a truly great friend is someone with whom you can be yourself -- your whole self. Clark doesn't have that sort of relationship with anyone right now and neither does Diana. They are both literally disconnected from humans.

I simply didn't want to at the time. The whole All-StarSuperman/Man Of Steel phrase means that Superman will set an example for us to aspire towards. A set of values and goals we all can reach, but haven't yet. We will stumble and fall along the way, but in the end we will join them being the best we can be.

If we cannot join with heroes as equals and friends in our pursuit of light, then we are merely children learning our lessons. How can heroes inspire us to do as they do if they do not believe we are strong enough to be their comrades? Imitation is not the path to true equality, for true equality requires genuine trust and inclusion in the struggle.

Wow. I had no idea about that cult. I'll have to get some info on it. May I ask what Wilfred and Invisible Children are all about?

Wilfred is a dark existential comedy starring Elijah Wood about a messed up guy and his imaginary friend who is a dog that talks to him. I don't know much about Invisible Children, but I believe it was connected to the Kony scandal last year.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

We are all children of Grodd :D

Grodd, you bastard. Now you'll have to give me all those christmas presents you didn't all this time.

[Nocturnus]

Jeez.. not again. This endless loop. The constant going of back and forth like everyone's having a big happy orgy. Anyway, I'm tired of talking rationality and from here onwards, ill frame my wishful thoughts as possible future to come.

Now that Supes has lost his humanity, he will just give the finger to the face of all things human. He will wake up and claim that he has had enough of this bollocks and will climb atop the Daily Planet globe and state his purpose, to which he screams and says: "F*** EVERYTHING." Superdick is back and he is pissed off. He'll start killing random people left and right, starting with Lois.



I lost my train of thought. But yeah, that could happen.

[misslane38]

Anyway, I'm tired of talking rationality

Clearly.

Now that Supes has lost his humanity, he will just give the finger to the face of all things human.

Nice. Just for the record, this sort of scenario has never been in the future I've envisioned. I believe I've been quite measured in my prognostications.

I lost my train of thought. But yeah, that could happen.

Nope.

[dupersuper]

The only reason Superman is alive right now to make moves on Diana is because Steve rescued him and the rest from being the Justice b#tches of a bunch of class 5 full roaming vapors.

The only reason Steve was alive to save the JL is because of the countless times Superman saved the whole planet...

Its great the way he has saved the world a dozen times over but I would not accept that makes him better than a New York firefighter.

Neither would Supes: the idea a person is better than another is obviously a non-starter. I do find him a better character...

We are all children of Grodd :D

Speak for yourself: I bow only before Solivar.

[Outside_85]

Speak for yourself: I bow only before Solivar.

Grodd: "Dupersuper...I am your father."

[666MasterOfPuppets]

I believe it will nevertheless prove key.

Why not?

A good deal of time has been spend talking about change and flexibility, but it is interesting that so many people think that you can take Superman's character, put it in a radically different context, and that everything will still be exactly the same. Ie, you can replace Lois with Wonder Woman and Clark is not in any way different. He will do and say and think all the same things as he did in the relationship with Lois, there will just be a lot more flying and sex in orbit and a lot less rescues.

Which it me seems very very odd. I can tell you as a married man I am not the same person I was pre-marriage living with a wife. Any man with a survival instinct will tell you the same.

The thing with the Lois relationship was - Clark would go out, be Superman, and then come home and be human. He would talk about human things with Lois, the stuff going on with her and their mutual friends, etc. The human problems and truimphs of his life as Clark Kent.

Right now that cannot happen with Diana. For starters, she doesnt know any of Clark's human friends. How is that going to work? She doesnt have a secret id. Will Clark announce he is dating Wonder Woman? Or is he going to keep the most important relationship of his life a secret from the human friends in his life?

So when they get together right now they will talk about... what? Their common ground is super-hero stuff. Diana could teach him about the Amazons but that is not much of a help in many ways [and the conversation about the sex/murder raids is going to be HELL-A-interesting]. Clark could talk to her about people she doesn't know and at the moment can never meet? Under these circumstances the idea that Clark's perspective cannot change seems rather optimistic. He acts like a regular person because he was raised by them AND spends most of his time with them. But people can change. Again, I used to spend a lot of time and Church and no i don't. The experience of not spending time at Church means I am a different person than I was a decade ago.

So he goes out and spends time as Superman, and then comes home and spends time with his super-girlfriend away from other ordinary humans? Hmmmm.

What I am saying is, from a writing point of view there is simply no point to putting these characters in a different relationship and then just using it to have sex scenes up in the clouds. Having a long term relationship with Diana is different than having a long term relationship with Lois and therefor logic demands that Superman cannot be the same as in the Lois scenario. The same goes for Wonder Woman. I beleive that if a person of average creativity like myself can contemplate that the professional writers at DC are going to speculate about it and want to explore it. Drama demands complications, and with the current trend for heroes to spend as much or more fighting each other as villains those complications could be very very interesting.

You talk about it as if the only relationship Superman has is that with Diana. He does have friends inside and outside the Justice League who he can talk human things with. As for Diana, I think of it as a challenge for new stories. Talking to her about his human life will make her learn more about man's world. Perhaps she'll adopt a secret ID in the future, perhaps she won't (that will be Azzarello's call).

I'm a married man, too, and my marriage has indeed changed me in some ways. But would I say that my core has changed? No. Are you completely different from the one you were before you got married? If you liked to help others before you got married, would that relationship make you stop doing that? I don't think so, and in the case of Superman, it is much less likely.

Also, let's remember that we're talking about Superman here, not Dr. Manhattan. There's no way a character like Superman will turn into a Dr. Manhattan-esque character because he got together with one of his JL peers. Remember that small sequence in the Superman Annual when he, even when he can fly, uses the subway to go to work everyday because he loves it? My point is that he likes to be among us, live our lives and share things with us, and when that annual happened, Ma and Pa were already long dead and neither Lana nor Pete were in his life (that we know of).