Another kiss by WW and Superman

[666MasterOfPuppets]

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.

I'm not against having Superman in a deep friendship with a human. Lana Lang and Pete Ross come to mind. Perhaps we'll see her in the future.

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.

I respect your opinion, but don't share it. That same thing can be demonstrated via Superman's friendships with humans. Father Daniel Leone comes to mind. He was not only his friend, but his confidant (even though the priest never knew his secret ID, mind you).

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.

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

If we are going to talk about Superman's first love, then I'd say, again, Lana Lang. We don't know for sure yet, but it's likely that in this new continuity they were a couple back in Smallville. I also think that Superman is finally getting over Lois. He has aways admired her and loved her as a friend, and some hints here and there (particularly Superman #1) told us that - in the past - he might have wanted to have something more with her. But that is in the past, and his now-developing relationship with Diana was due to a moment of connection they both had towards the other. Fear/cowardice? Not necessarily, as you'll see in a bit.

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.

Okay.

It's understandable yet cowardly.

That is indeed one way to look at it. But it could also be seen as something quite heroic, in the sense that Superman, as always, has put the needs of others before those of his own. That is not to say that, in time, he will not share his secret with someone (well, he already did with Diana). And perhaps he did share his secret with someone in his youth.

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

I'm guessing it will happen... In time.

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.

Disconnected is a strong word. Like I said previously, this is not Dr. Manhattan. And if the books have told us anything, is that Superman does in fact has a connection with humans.

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.

If Superman thought we weren't up to the task, he'd rule Earth with an iron fist. Or, for example, he wouldn't let Batman fight The Joker because he's too damn dangerous. He does let us try to be better, he just is "the light to show the way".

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.

Kony scandal? Doesn't ring a bell. As for Wilfred, I might have seen something on TV. Thanx.

[Auguste Dupin]

It's understandable yet cowardly.



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



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.



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.

-Am I the only one who thinks this use of the word "cowardly" in this context is just misplaced? Some burdens are just heavier to bear than others, and I don't see how it's cowardly to be hesitant in putting the fact that the world's greatest hero (who, in this continuity, has as many people hating him than he he has fans) is your collegue when you're not even sure that person wants to share its life with you. Is it really more cowardly than Clark dating Lois without telling her who he is for a few months? Besides, the "she would be in danger" is a valid argument here. We're not in Lois and Clark anymore, where any petty thief would know the best way to grab Superman's attention for a few hours is to put her into a death trap. So far, she has been in danger 3 times I think, two times along with the entire city, and once because she was the aunt of a nutant with psychic powers.

-We are talking about the same Clark who, in a different continuity, would invent incredible tricks just to prevent Lois from knowing his secret identity (and yes, using Pre Crisis is about as valid here as the Post Crisis marriage period: both didn't happen anymore)? Because we could actually make a pretty strong case of Clark not wanting that at all, and being perfectly happy with everyone calling him a wimp.

-Unless he doesn't consider Clark and Superman as separate parts of himself. Which seem to be how Lobdell (who is going to write the book with the guy's name on it, after all) seem to see it. "He's the same person, it's just that when he put certain clothes on him, people call him Superman". The only one who tried so far to present him as being isolated is Johns who, while the one at the origin of this relationship, is also the one known from strongly mischaractarising the members of the League compared to their own book, ,including the ones whose books he writes.
And I declare the use of the entirety of Perez' run irrelevant, on the basis of the "Clark at his parents' graves in issue 3" evidence. Indeed, it is stated in the book that Clark has no memory of it, as soon as the following issue, making this one of the many cases the alien nanites played with his brain -despite yes, the fact that there no reason for them to make him visit his parents' graves. Therefore, and on the basis that even illogical actions are put on the nanites' shoulders, the court declare that all of Clark's actions during that run are uncertain, and as such, unsuable as evidence.

-By trying to be worthy of them? If we are supposed to be inspired by them, then how they see us is of little relevance, what is of importance is how we see them. Superman is saving the world all the time, proving as such his "love" for us. He doesn't have to have "strong emotionnal connections" with any of us to do so. Nowhere it is written that we are supposed to be their equals. if we are inspired by them, then bu definition we are trying to be like them, then by definition we are trying to imitate them. Strong emotionnal connection or not.

[misslane38]

I'm not against having Superman in a deep friendship with a human. Lana Lang and Pete Ross come to mind. Perhaps we'll see her in the future.

I would love for Clark to have real connections with Lana and Pete, but he also wants to connect with Lois. It would be hypocritical to open up to his former friends instead of his new one, especially when he's expressed a desire to be closer to her.

I respect your opinion, but don't share it. That same thing can be demonstrated via Superman's friendships with humans. Father Daniel Leone comes to mind. He was not only his friend, but his confidant (even though the priest never knew his secret ID, mind you).

Friendship isn't true friendship if it not characterized by trust. By not sharing his secret identity with Father Daniel Leone, Superman demonstrated he did not fully trust him. And the same thing cannot be demonstrated via Superman's friendships with humans, for it is through marriage that all heroic myths use to bind together two worlds.

If we are going to talk about Superman's first love, then I'd say, again, Lana Lang. We don't know for sure yet, but it's likely that in this new continuity they were a couple back in Smallville. I also think that Superman is finally getting over Lois. He has aways admired her and loved her as a friend, and some hints here and there (particularly Superman #1) told us that - in the past - he might have wanted to have something more with her. But that is in the past, and his now-developing relationship with Diana was due to a moment of connection they both had towards the other. Fear/cowardice? Not necessarily, as you'll see in a bit.

Clark is not over Lois yet as far as I can tell. Kissing Diana is no indication that Clark's feelings for Lois have changed, especially when you consider the fact that their moment of connection was borne out of the pain they caused for themselves by pushing away the humans they care about.

That is indeed one way to look at it. But it could also be seen as something quite heroic, in the sense that Superman, as always, has put the needs of others before those of his own. That is not to say that, in time, he will not share his secret with someone (well, he already did with Diana). And perhaps he did share his secret with someone in his youth.

It would be heroic if Superman and Wonder Woman were disconnecting themselves from the humans they care about in their lives because they were being attentive to Steve's and Lois's needs. But, unfortunately, neither Steve nor Lois need or want Superman and Wonder Woman to protect them. What you're talking about is paternalism. It is easy to share a secret with a friend who is a goddess. True courage would be required to share your dangerous secret with a friend and to ultimately let him or her decide what is best for himself or herself.

I'm guessing it will happen... In time.

Guesses are not facts, so right now I believe it is perfectly reasonable to judge Clark and Diana for disconnecting themselves from humans.

Disconnected is a strong word. Like I said previously, this is not Dr. Manhattan. And if the books have told us anything, is that Superman does in fact has a connection with humans.

Superman does not have any significant connections with humans; neither does Wonder Woman. They love humanity in the abstract and nurture humanity in themselves, but they are not personally connected with any human being either romantically or platonically.

If Superman thought we weren't up to the task, he'd rule Earth with an iron fist. Or, for example, he wouldn't let Batman fight The Joker because he's too damn dangerous. He does let us try to be better, he just is "the light to show the way".

Superman and Wonder Woman do not appear to be comfortable with allowing ordinary humans the chance to be their allies and confidantes. They don't rule the Earth with an iron fist because they are confident they can catch us when we fall, but that's still not the same as welcoming humans as equals in the battle for truth and justice. Their acceptance of Batman is hypocritical. If Bruce can be on the team despite his human frailties, why could Steve Trevor not stay on as League liaison? Finally, heroes cannot show humans the way if they are afflicted with fear; they cannot show humans the way if their idea of inspiration is shining like a light from on high instead of intimately touching the lives of ordinary humans. How can humans ever hope to aspire to a false image of perfection? Clark and Diana are not perfect, and there are likely many humans who may not be powerful but may be and do just as much good. Why is it not possible that a deep connection with a human might provide heroes like Clark and Diana a source of inspiration? Can humans not show the way with their own light?

If Superman and Wonder Woman insist on disconnecting themselves from the humans in their lives out a paternalistic need to protect them, then they are limiting access to people who can both inspire and support them in ways that fellow heroes and superbeings cannot. Clark and Diana, in my opinion, need to see themselves through the eyes of ordinary humans who know them -- all parts of them. They need to be able to accept that ordinary humans should not be pushed away as not fit for the fight but welcomed as comrades because humans deserve to have a part to play in their own destiny. Sitting on the sidelines hoping for inspiration --- waiting for salvation -- is a passive role for humanity. Diana and Clark, when they can get beyond the fear, want to have humans by their sides. They should follow their bliss and let them in.

[misslane38]

-Am I the only one who thinks this use of the word "cowardly" in this context is just misplaced? Some burdens are just heavier to bear than others, and I don't see how it's cowardly to be hesitant in putting the fact that the world's greatest hero (who, in this continuity, has as many people hating him than he he has fans) is your collegue when you're not even sure that person wants to share its life with you.

That's the thing, though, by not taking a chance with Lois, Clark will never be sure she would want to share her life with him. He cost himself the chance to see if he could have the life he wanted because he was a coward.

Is it really more cowardly than Clark dating Lois without telling her who he is for a few months? Besides, the "she would be in danger" is a valid argument here. We're not in Lois and Clark anymore, where any petty thief would know the best way to grab Superman's attention for a few hours is to put her into a death trap. So far, she has been in danger 3 times I think, two times along with the entire city, and once because she was the aunt of a nutant with psychic powers.

The fact that Lois has been in danger proves why not telling Lois the truth is so ridiculous. Why? Because it demonstrates that there is no difference between knowing or not knowing when it comes to potential danger she might face. It would not be cowardly for Clark to date Lois without telling her the truth for a few months because it makes sense to wait to see if you see a future with someone before sharing everything with that person. But, like I said before, Clark can never know if that would be a possibility until he gives a relationship with Lois a chance.

-We are talking about the same Clark who, in a different continuity, would invent incredible tricks just to prevent Lois from knowing his secret identity (and yes, using Pre Crisis is about as valid here as the Post Crisis marriage period: both didn't happen anymore)? Because we could actually make a pretty strong case of Clark not wanting that at all, and being perfectly happy with everyone calling him a wimp.

Superman didn't tell Lois in the Post-Crisis era because he had a serious Peter Pan complex. Alan Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? serves as an ostensible farewell to the Post-Crisis era. It is in that story that Superman confesses to Perry that he did not tell Lois how much he loved her because he was a coward.

-Unless he doesn't consider Clark and Superman as separate parts of himself. Which seem to be how Lobdell (who is going to write the book with the guy's name on it, after all) seem to see it. "He's the same person, it's just that when he put certain clothes on him, people call him Superman". The only one who tried so far to present him as being isolated is Johns who, while the one at the origin of this relationship, is also the one known from strongly mischaractarising the members of the League compared to their own book, ,including the ones whose books he writes.

I'm sure Superman does not see himself as divided into two separate people. Nonetheless, by limiting the types of connections Clark can have, Superman becomes the more dominant of the two parts of himself. Superman is isolated right now, according to Johns, because he will not allow himself to forge the kind of connections Superman/Clark wants with humans. If Johns is mischaracterizing Superman, then what does that say about Superman and Wonder Woman's relationship? Does this make their relationship, according to you, based on a lie?

And I declare the use of the entirety of Perez' run irrelevant, on the basis of the "Clark at his parents' graves in issue 3" evidence. Indeed, it is stated in the book that Clark has no memory of it, as soon as the following issue, making this one of the many cases the alien nanites played with his brain -despite yes, the fact that there no reason for them to make him visit his parents' graves. Therefore, and on the basis that even illogical actions are put on the nanites' shoulders, the court declare that all of Clark's actions during that run are uncertain, and as such, unsuable as evidence.

The nanites, I believe, only magnified existing parts of Clark's mind and thoughts. More importantly, Lobdell's Superman #13 reiterated that Clark has feelings for Lois; Matt Idelson also confirmed in interviews that Clark has feelings for Lois. Until Clark states that he has no memory of thinking he would want to connect with Lois if only things were different, then I don't believe anyone can declare those thoughts invalid.

-By trying to be worthy of them? If we are supposed to be inspired by them, then how they see us is of little relevance, what is of importance is how we see them. Superman is saving the world all the time, proving as such his "love" for us. He doesn't have to have "strong emotionnal connections" with any of us to do so. Nowhere it is written that we are supposed to be their equals. if we are inspired by them, then bu definition we are trying to be like them, then by definition we are trying to imitate them. Strong emotionnal connection or not.

Humans should be considered the equals of heroes because we should all have the same potential. As much as humans are inspired by heroes, I would hope heroes could also be inspired by us. Heroes aren't perfect. Just because a man or woman does not fight crime with fancy gadgets or alien superpowers does not make that man or woman unworthy of being called a hero. Heroes who have strong emotional connections with humans prove their love for them goes beyond the paternalistic and the abstract.

[Auguste Dupin]

That's the thing, though, by not taking a chance with Lois, Clark will never be sure she would want to share her life with him. He cost himself the chance to see if he could have the life he wanted because he was a coward.



The fact that Lois has been in danger proves why not telling Lois the truth is so ridiculous. Why? Because it demonstrates that there is no difference between knowing or not knowing when it comes to potential danger she might face. It would not be cowardly for Clark to date Lois without telling her the truth for a few months because it makes sense to wait to see if you see a future with someone before sharing everything with that person. But, like I said before, Clark can never know if that would be a possibility until he gives a relationship with Lois a chance.



Superman didn't tell Lois in the Post-Crisis era because he had a serious Peter Pan complex. Alan Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? serves as an ostensible farewell to the Post-Crisis era. It is in that story that Superman confesses to Perry that he did not tell Lois how much he loved her because he was a coward.



I'm sure Superman does not see himself as divided into two separate people. Nonetheless, by limiting the types of connections Clark can have, Superman becomes the more dominant of the two parts of himself. Superman is isolated right now, according to Johns, because he will not allow himself to forge the kind of connections Superman/Clark wants with humans. If Johns is mischaracterizing Superman, then what does that say about Superman and Wonder Woman's relationship? Does this make their relationship, according to you, based on a lie?



The nanites, I believe, only magnified existing parts of Clark's mind and thoughts. More importantly, Lobdell's Superman #13 reiterated that Clark has feelings for Lois; Matt Idelson also confirmed in interviews that Clark has feelings for Lois. Until Clark states that he has no memory of thinking he would want to connect with Lois if only things were different, then I don't believe anyone can declare those thoughts invalid.



Humans should be considered the equals of heroes because we should all have the same potential. As much as humans are inspired by heroes, I would hope heroes could also be inspired by us. Heroes aren't perfect. Just because a man or woman does not fight crime with fancy gadgets or alien superpowers does not make that man or woman unworthy of being called a hero. Heroes who have strong emotional connections with humans prove their love for them goes beyond the paternalistic and the abstract.

-So, everytime he has a crush on someone, he should just reveal everything about himself? No Clark Kent has ever told Lois Lane about his secret before starting to date her. And no comic book Clark Kent has ever taken less than five years before having a date with her.

- You're missing the point. Lois Lane has been in danger 3 times in six years, as far as we know. The first time, she has been abducted with all New Troy, so it wasn't specific to her. The second time, she happened to be the aunt of the target of the villain. Again, nothing specific about her and Superman. The third time, it was when fake Superman attacked Metropolis and actually I'm saying something stupid because she actually was not in danger. So, that makes it two, and all of them would have happened had she never met Clark or Superman. Therefore, the argument that letting her in the know would put her in danger is actually valid because she has barely been in danger so far. Let's just compare to any other version of Lois Lane (appart from Earth One), who ends up being in danger much more often in much less time.

-Thing is, Post Crisis is just as gone as Pre Crisis. Either both can be used as how Clark feels about commiting and having "strong emotionnal whatever", or none. You use the marriage period to say he does? I use Pre Crisis to say he would prefer to pretend to be a murderer to make her hook up with someone else than commiting.
It's only fair.

- No. it's just the proof that the character is only as "real" as the author writing him. According to Johns, Superman is the dominant personnality . According to Lobdell, the question doesn't even make sense. And both are going to write this relationship, so you're going to have it both ways. Welcome to comics.

- So, they only magnified parts of his mind when they took control of his body to bring him to Smallville? I call that "mind control". Not to mention how everyone has repressed thoughts and inhibitions. How you deal with them is just as much who you are than what you do with them. And this argument was sorely about the "Clark feels lonely" aspect. That and the whole arc ends with Superman proclaiming how he does not feel out of touch and only did so at first.
Objection overruled.

-No. I can have emotionnal connections with someone and still be paternalistic, for once, that's the wonderful ambiguity of the human mind. Second, if you are inspired (in the way people are supposed to be inspired by Superman) with someone, this relationship is not one of equals, because by definition you believe him to be a better person than you are. Superman is here (according to the whole "idealistic" idea developped with him) to lead the way, "lead them into the Sun" as the famous saying goes. What he does in his private life is just his own damn business. Superman "proves" enough by being Superman. If people wonder if the guy that died to save a city of defenseless civilians has a "real" love for us or just an abstract one, then they're just a bunch of pricks. No one with a paternalistic love would sacrifice himself to save people. That requires real love, and it should be enough.

[misslane38]

-So, everytime he has a crush on someone, he should just reveal everything about himself? No Clark Kent has ever told Lois Lane about his secret before starting to date her. And no comic book Clark Kent has ever taken less than five years before having a date with her.

That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said that in order for Clark to know if Lois is someone he would feel comfortable opening up to about everything, he actually has to tell her how he feels about her. He has to allow himself to get closer to her and to get to know her better. No comic book Clark Kent has ever taken as long as this one to ask Lois Lane out because every other Clark wasn't as cowardly.

- You're missing the point. Lois Lane has been in danger 3 times in six years, as far as we know. The first time, she has been abducted with all New Troy, so it wasn't specific to her. The second time, she happened to be the aunt of the target of the villain. Again, nothing specific about her and Superman. The third time, it was when fake Superman attacked Metropolis and actually I'm saying something stupid because she actually was not in danger. So, that makes it two, and all of them would have happened had she never met Clark or Superman. Therefore, the argument that letting her in the know would put her in danger is actually valid because she has barely been in danger so far. Let's just compare to any other version of Lois Lane (appart from Earth One), who ends up being in danger much more often in much less time.

She's barely been in danger so far in the New 52, but the dangers she's encountered had nothing to do with being close to Superman or Clark either romantically or platonically. Getting closer to Clark isn't going to change that because that's the whole point of his maintaining a secret identity. More importantly, if we look to history as a guide, Lois was saved by Superman during the triangle era (Lois knew his secret then) an average of three times a year. I'd say knowing or not knowing has not been proven to significantly affect how much Lois is endangered.

-Thing is, Post Crisis is just as gone as Pre Crisis. Either both can be used as how Clark feels about commiting and having "strong emotionnal whatever", or none. You use the marriage period to say he does? I use Pre Crisis to say he would prefer to pretend to be a murderer to make her hook up with someone else than commiting.
It's only fair.

I haven't used the Post-Crisis era to prove anything. Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? was an ode to the Pre-Crisis era. In that story, Superman told Perry he was a coward for not telling Lois how he felt. What I've been discussing is mythological themes and characterizations found in all ages of Superman, including in the New 52. I think the fairest analysis requires looking at all of the evidence. When every era suggests Superman doesn't tell Lois his secret because he's letting fear decide love, then that's suggests a theme.

- No. it's just the proof that the character is only as "real" as the author writing him. According to Johns, Superman is the dominant personnality . According to Lobdell, the question doesn't even make sense. And both are going to write this relationship, so you're going to have it both ways. Welcome to comics.

I realize that the writing of comics is flawed because different writers do not write the same character the same way. Nevertheless, if all characterizations are valid, then I believe it is fair to critique the Superman and Wonder Woman relationship as it is written in Justice League and to criticize all writers of the relationship for creating an inconsistent narrative.

- So, they only magnified parts of his mind when they took control of his body to bring him to Smallville? I call that "mind control". Not to mention how everyone has repressed thoughts and inhibitions. How you deal with them is just as much who you are than what you do with them. And this argument was sorely about the "Clark feels lonely" aspect. That and the whole arc ends with Superman proclaiming how he does not feel out of touch and only did so at first.
Objection overruled.

How you deal with repressed thoughts and emotions does reveal your character. Admirable protagonists, according to scholars of myth, follow their bliss. Running away from your heart's desire out of fear is not the way I would expect a hero to act. Heroes are optimists; they have faith in the future. By letting fear decide love, in some small way they are letting darkness win. The arc you're referring to ended with Clark admitting that he doesn't feel different, which is not the same thing as saying he is not lonely. Clark also decided to enjoy life and have more fun. He went on a bungee jumping date with Lucy Lane. At no point, however, did Clark express that these initial steps toward enjoying life had lessened his feelings of loneliness. Superman's characterization in Justice League #12 certainly suggests otherwise.

-No. I can have emotionnal connections with someone and still be paternalistic, for once, that's the wonderful ambiguity of the human mind.

Sure, you can protect people you have deep emotional connections with in a paternalistic way, but that sort of relationship is an unequal one. It's the sort of relationship a mother has with her child but not the sort of relationship a soldier has with his wife or the countless other civilians in his home country whom he protects.

Second, if you are inspired (in the way people are supposed to be inspired by Superman) with someone, this relationship is not one of equals, because by definition you believe him to be a better person than you are. Superman is here (according to the whole "idealistic" idea developped with him) to lead the way, "lead them into the Sun" as the famous saying goes.

You keep missing my point. My point is that there are likely humans who are equally good and heroic who should be capable of inspiring heroes. It's shouldn't be a one way street with heroes inspiring humans instead both inspiring each other. There are more ways to be a good person and a hero than to be a superhero with superpowers. If Superman and Wonder Woman do not believe humans are their equals, then they do not believe we have the same "capacity for good" that they do, or if we as humans do have it, we should not be allowed to express that (at least that's how Diana has behaved thus far).

What he does in his private life is just his own damn business. Superman "proves" enough by being Superman. If people wonder if the guy that died to save a city of defenseless civilians has a "real" love for us or just an abstract one, then they're just a bunch of pricks. No one with a paternalistic love would sacrifice himself to save people. That requires real love, and it should be enough.

Superman dying for humanity is analogous to a father laying down his life for his son. It is exactly the sort of paternalistic love is real and admirable, but it still evidence of an unequal relationship. For example, a man doesn't get to tell a woman she cannot follow him into battle because he is afraid she will get hurt, for she should be able to make her own choices about what risks she is willing to take to protect the things she cares about. The same applies to heroes and humans: heroes have no right to insist humans are too weak and vulnerable to fight for their own salvation. Heroes who love humans, and want to love specific humans, act cowardly and paternalistically when they push them away out of fear. If heroes want humans to join them in the sun, then they have to let them do it regardless of the risks.

[Gaelforce]

<points to the Superman forum>

If y'all wanna debate Lois and Clark, please take it there.

Thanks!

[brettc1]

<points to the Superman forum>

If y'all wanna debate Lois and Clark, please take it there.

Thanks!

It's your call, of course, Gael. But the themes and issues do seem to be inexorably intertwined at the moment.

[misslane38]

<points to the Superman forum>

If y'all wanna debate Lois and Clark, please take it there.

Thanks!

Good point. I wonder if Wonder Woman fans who like Superman and Wonder Woman together could expand on what they hope to see in this Young Romance issue and in this romance overall. If they could do without referencing Lois or Steve (or arguments about links to humanity), then that would be great. I'm quite satisfied with ending my part of this discussion now in order to let a new one sprout in its place. If anyone would like to discuss this further, he or she can create a thread elsewhere.

[lariatofhestia]

Good point. I wonder if Wonder Woman fans who like Superman and Wonder Woman together could expand on what they hope to see in this Young Romance issue and in this romance overall. If they could do without referencing Lois or Steve (or arguments about links to humanity), then that would be great. I'm quite satisfied with ending my part of this discussion now in order to let a new one sprout in its place. If anyone would like to discuss this further, he or she can create a thread elsewhere.

What do we expect? A good , entertaining story. And then judge the story AFTER we read it.

[Aquacatlungfish]

Can we get over this Lois Lane debate as we know that the SMWW stuff will end after Trinity War and Superman will go back to Lois?

[brettc1]

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).

I dont read the Superman titles, just Justice League. So perhaps I foolishly assumed the charcter flying around in JL was being the written the same way. But in JL 9 the panel where Clark recieves the phone call from Bruce to join him - everything about that page communicates a man who is unhappy being Clark Kent and more happy being Superman. The flashback to being picked last in sports, the body language as he eats alone and silent, head down, while his coworkers interact with each other around him - it all speaks of lonlieness. And since the story is being told through JL at the moment, that is what I am drawing my evidence from.

Now maybe reading all the Superman titles will give me more of a clue, but that would cost a lot more money a month and I am busy reading Avengers at the moment. Besides, Superman should be the same in whatever title I am reading. Of course that should be the same of Wonder Woman and the debacle [IMO] of her characterization in JL 11 and 12 leaves that in doubt.

So getting back to JL9, the page communicates a guy who is happier being Superman than Clark Kent. Nothing wrong with that, perectly understandable. That is why we have all read Superman comics at one point - escapism [ I collected all his titles from 1984 - 2000]. But if you were only happy when you werer reading a Supes comic and looked like Clark on that page all the rest of the time, that would not be good.

The biggest problem I see at the moment is how does he spend time as Superman, spend time with Diana, and spend time being human? Even for Clark there are only 24 hours in a day. How does Diana spend time with his other friends? Nothing I myself have seen speaks to me of a guy who has deep connections to his life as an ordinary guy. And if Superman doesnt need that, then why indeed does he bother with Clark Kent.

Perhaps this is partly also my reaction to the word romance. I dont trust it, and havent for a while. A word for turning off the higher cognitive functions of the brain and driving your car off a cliff.

[misslane38]

What do we expect? A good , entertaining story. And then judge the story AFTER we read it.

What are your standards for a good, entertaining Superman and Wonder Woman story? What do you hope for? What do you like about this couple that you hope shines through in this Valentine's Day story? Are there any issues you would like to see addressed or things you would like these two characters to experience? I'm not asking you to judge, in other words, I'm asking you to speculate as I have done in this thread. The only judgments I've made have been based on stories that have already been written and published, namely Justice League #12 and #13 as well as Superman #1-13.

[kylesgirl]

I dont read the Superman titles, just Justice League. So perhaps I foolishly assumed the charcter flying around in JL was being the written the same way. But in JL 9 the panel where Clark recieves the phone call from Bruce to join him - everything about that page communicates a man who is unhappy being Clark Kent and more happy being Superman. The flashback to being picked last in sports, the body language as he eats alone and silent, head down, while his coworkers interact with each other around him - it all speaks of lonlieness. And since the story is being told through JL at the moment, that is what I am drawing my evidence from.

Now maybe reading all the Superman titles will give me more of a clue, but that would cost a lot more money a month and I am busy reading Avengers at the moment. Besides, Superman should be the same in whatever title I am reading. Of course that should be the same of Wonder Woman and the debacle [IMO] of her characterization in JL 11 and 12 leaves that in doubt.

So getting back to JL9, the page communicates a guy who is happier being Superman than Clark Kent. Nothing wrong with that, perectly understandable. That is why we have all read Superman comics at one point - escapism [ I collected all his titles from 1984 - 2000]. But if you were only happy when you werer reading a Supes comic and looked like Clark on that page all the rest of the time, that would not be good.

The biggest problem I see at the moment is how does he spend time as Superman, spend time with Diana, and spend time being human? Even for Clark there are only 24 hours in a day. How does Diana spend time with his other friends? Nothing I myself have seen speaks to me of a guy who has deep connections to his life as an ordinary guy. And if Superman doesnt need that, then why indeed does he bother with Clark Kent.

Perhaps this is partly also my reaction to the work romance. I dont trust it, and havent for a while. A word for turning off the higher cognitive functions of the brain and driving your car off a cliff.

I recommend you pick up Superman #0 and Superman #13 and get Action in Trade. The first 12 issues of Superman are a waste of money. Unless you get them cheap. No offense to Perez but wow, those 6 issues were like you regurgitated one issue. It's clear editorial couldn't decide what they wanted to do as stated by Perez but he himself really did not write anything that great. Most fans and critics have said the Superman book had been poor and directionless. Clark started off moping for Lois until Lois set him up with her sister Lucy and then he was seen having some fun with Lucy. Then we had the kiss.Johns is the one setting up the romance and we have yet to read how they do decide (If they decide to date) to take a chance with each other. Scott Lobdell says he will be exploring the relationship in the Super books and he is not using Lucy again. Andy Diggle as well will touch on the relationship and Scott Snyder also says he will have Diana in his ongoing next year. Azz is ignoring everyone. lol.

It's as someone else said different writers take and use what they want to craft their story and how they see the characters. There is no hard and fast rule that what went on in a past book has to be used. But the gist is Diana is going to be in the super books.

[Sacred Knight]

Superman's not unhappy being Clark Kent. If anything, the reboot has provided the right balance in terms of the escapism. Unlike pre-reboot, he doesn't show any regrets or reservations about his powers and being Superman, but at the same time it goes both ways and he appreciates the escapism that Clark Kent also provides for other reasons, such as anonymity, blending in, and most importantly his work, which he considers just as important as his being a superhero.

I think in fact that the writing is going out of its way, at least in Action and Superman, to drop the whole "what's the mask, Clark or Superman?" and establish that there is no mask.