Some Thoughts on Diana, Clark, Lois, and a New-52
on August 29, 2012 at 12:10 amSo.
My opinion.
This and $2.85 will get you a large iced coffee at the Peets just down the block from my house. Yes, it’s expensive, but I like it.
Jim Lee has said Diana and Clark are together for the foreseeable future, and that Lois is on her own, or so I am told. A lot of people are upset, and some are genuinely hurt, and I understand that. There are those of us who truly love these characters and their histories, and this certainly can be interpreted as a slap in the face to all of us and all of that. This is what comics are – they’re a continuity of stories about characters we adore; it’s why we return to them again and again, even when we’re disappointed, and it’s what makes it so hard to leave books behind when they no longer entertain.
But…
Regardless of the wisdom – for better or for worse – of relaunching DC into this “New 52,” it’s happened, it has at this point, in fact, happened long enough ago now that one could argue the “new” is no longer a descriptor but rather a branding. If one is willing to grant DC sincerity in this re-creation, in starting fresh, then, by definition, they must revisit, rework, and even reject what has come before. Otherwise they’re left with nothing else but a naked marketing ploy.
Which brings us to this.
How I feel about the decisions Geoff and Jim have made on the book are entirely irrelevant and immaterial. What they have done is to decisively break with the past, and to run headlong into the “new.” Speaking as a writer, they’ve not only opened a can of worms, but they’ve also opened a vast arena of new stories to tell. Some of those stories may well be worth telling. Some of those stories may well be worth repeating, and even cherishing. And, yes, some of those stories may end up best forgotten. And some may argue they’re stories that never needed telling in the first place.
But to condemn DC, and Geoff Johns, and Jim Lee, for doing – at least with regards to Superman, Wonder Woman, and Lois – exactly what the branding of NEW demands seems to me counterproductive. DC is, at least in this instance, walking their talk.
As I said here, if you’re not getting what you want from your comics, it’s time to stop buying them. I wouldn’t expect you to buy The Punisher if you hate the fact that Frank’s gone all taciturn and that the gunfights have been few and far between. Rather, I would expect you to pursue those stories that give you joy, that give you your money’s worth.
Vote with your dollars. Keep your strength. Know when to stay, and when to walk away.
Hold fast!
Greg
The “new” they chose disrespected and degraded two powerful women. It legitimized the idea that Diana exists not to have her own story but to be part of a man and pushed aside the most powerful civilian woman in the genre.
It confuses mr that you, of all people, don’t think that is condemnable.
Reread my post, please. I went to great lengths to separate my personal feelings about what they’re doing from my statement that what they’re doing is the inevitable extension of their “New 52.” Do I approve of it, inasmuch as I have approval to grant? No, I detest it, the same way I detest the fact that they’ve reduced Starfire to a sexual object and plaything for the men around her, erased Renee from continuity, and debuted their new Catwoman straddling Batman. And the list goes on and on.
(Edited for phrasing.)
I miss Renee.
I do, too.
When did they erase Renee from continuity? A photo of her showed up on a wall at the GCPD in Batwoman. They may have killed her off (this is inconclusive), but she still existed in the New DCU at some point.
J.H. Williams confirmed in an interview that Renee is not dead. The wall of photos were reflecting commendations, not fallen heroes, apparently. Some comfort, if not cold given Renee does appear to be waiting out the creation of new characters in the universe. I too am very disappointed not to have her appearing regularly, as the Question or simply as the brilliantly portrayed cop she was in Gotham Central.
Well.. at least erased the version of her that existed. In with the new for new sake. Hell, Vic Sage as The Question is now a damned immortal.. literally.. damned by gods who stole his face and identity. What.. the.. hell?! I can’t even imagine where that leaves Renee and any Question in New 52. And don’t even get me started on Huntress…. I tossed up my arms and swore to get not get another DC book. Though already at that point Snyer’s Batman, JH’s Batwoman, and Morrison’s Supes was all I could stomach.
I’m also enjoying The Flash, though admittedly I had no real personal connection to the character before the reboot.
“It legitimized the idea that Diana exists not to have her own story…”
Only if you ignore her own series.
Which DC does, at great lengths.
“The “new” they chose disrespected and degraded two powerful women. It legitimized the idea that Diana exists not to have her own story but to be part of a man and pushed aside the most powerful civilian woman in the genre.”
Only if you define those two characters solely by their relationships. Wonder Woman is not disrespected or degraded by putting her into a relationship with Superman, just as she wouldn’t be is she was linked romantically with anyone.
However, if you’re worried that, by linking her romantically with Superman she will, by dint of Superman’s overwhelming status as “the” super-hero, come to be seen as an attachment to him rather than an important figure in her own right (“Superman’s Girl-Friend Wonder Woman,” as it were) you may have point, but only time will tell.
I disagree with Elle. I can’t see the disrespect she talks about. Yes, I know some people hate those two getting together instead of being Supes and Lois, but beyond the logical nostalgia/ shipper arguments, there’s no reason why Kal and Diana shouldn’t be a couple in the new continuity, IMO. so I say go for it, DC, and make it stick.
I have to agree completely with Greg. There’s been so much anger and bitterness by certain fans lately regarding just about everything DC has done, that I wonder where the energy to be that negative comes from.
I get the anger and disappointment, but this is comics. I have to wonder how young these fans are that they don’t understand that these changes happen(in spite of what people say about lack of change in the industry) fairly regularly. Look how angry certain people where over events in Killing Joke. Now, those same people defend the cannon of that story with more passion than they had eviscerating it when it came out.
As an Avengers fan, I can tell you that I was not pleased with the new direction that Bendis took the series. But as much as the changes annoyed me, I had to admit to myself that it was revered by readers more than it was reviled. That’s a bitter pill to swallow, but that’s how it goes. In time, someone will come along and change things again. That change might be in 10 years or in 3 or 4, who knows?
So why not expend that energy on a good comic that treats it’s characters with respect instead of wasting it on anger at a bad comic whose direction isn’t likely to change any time soon? Because that anger sure isn’t hurting DC.
After reading comics for over 40 years, I can safely say that “this too shall pass”.
At first I had a lot of issues with DC’s alterations to their characters and continuity. They promised a “soft” reboot and suddenly everything except Green Lantern is in a different place. I’ve come to look at it as just a complete overhaul and accepted that the stories I’ve read don’t apply in this new universe. The Barry Allen who died in COIE is not the same Barry Allen who stars in The Flash. The Diana in all of your Wonder Woman stories is not the one Azzarelo is writing (I’d love to hear your thoughts on that series, but I understand if you’d rather not discuss it openly). And this Superman has never been married to, or even dated, Lois Lane. It’s literally a new set of characters. I still wonder if DC would have been better off doing a wholesale reboot back to the origins of their stable characters and building from the ground up. You know, instead of coming back a year later to try to explain that bit with zero issues…
Appreciate your forthright nature with this subject, Greg. You’re fair minded about the whole issue while being honest, which is something you don’t see currently in the comics industry all that much since most noteworthy names in comics/books are either afraid of pissing off someone that could keep them from getting a new project or they work for the competition so they go mud slinging (*Cough* Brian Bendis *Cough*) It’s a refreshing change of pace to see someone trying to look at it realistically.
I’ll echo your sentiments wholeheartedly about the “New” 52 (considering the confusion some have had with the previous 52, they really should have chosen a different promotional number/moniker) On one hand I can understand their desire to pander, for want of a better term, towards the mainstream masses who have come to prefer grittiness, action, and copious amounts of fornication over, in many cases, substance.
However I do feel that, with some titles and characters, DC has found a great balance (Justice League Dark, Batman, and Aquaman just to name a few) while, with other titles (Outsiders, Teen Titans, Catwoman, Suicide Squad, and some of JLA) they’ve allowed the desire to “titillate” to get the better of them.
As you’ve said, seeing Korian’dr reduced to a team Sex Toy (sadly, not an exaggerated term, i.e. example: “Hey Kory, you’re bored? Okay, I’ll put it in your butt. That always cheers you up.”) was really quite disheartening; and, for the record, that’s coming from a guy who really does enjoy “the Sex.” But I do believe that Sex does not need to play into things at the cost of substance.
It’s my sincere hope that, as sales balance out and the titillation factor begins to wear thin, DC will return to the more ardent stance of writing stories that make us care, as opposed to stories that merely facilitate erections or boyhood/girlhood fantasy of the non-saving the world sort.
I’ve found, particularly with DC, that there are so many different versions of each character it’s easy to pick and choose (and separate) the ‘good’ from the ‘bad’. For example, my favorite version of Batman is Darwyn Cooke’s ‘The New Frontier’. I love that version of Batman, among others. By that same token there are also versions I dislike -but one does not effect the other. I can happily enjoy The New Frontier without worrying about what (or who) Batman is doing in another book.
I understand the anger…but isn’t it easier (and more fun) to just stick to the stuff you like and ignore the stuff you don’t?
Umm, That’s actually what he said in the post. “if you’re not getting what you want from your comics, it’s time to stop buying them.”
Doc, yes I know. I’m agreeing by way of rhetorical question.
A quote from a poster at Quarter to Three comes to mind: “I used to hate stuff. Now I like stuff.” It’s a much healthier way to spend one’s energy.
And much, much harder to do than one would think. God knows, I have to work at it every day.
Definitely! On the occasions I can manage it though, it is very liberating.
I agree with Greg.I saw the first issues of New 52, heard what they were doing in some of them i didn’t see, & decided to wait to check out the trades.Between their treatment of Steph in Smallville & this idiocy with Superman & Wonder Woman I’m not even bothering with the trades. I went from 50 of the 52 on my pull list to 0.Which has been a huge boon to quite a few people on Kickstarter. Some great looking stuff showing up there.
Thanks to you, Mark Waid and Kelly-Sue Deconnick, my Marvel pull-list is three times the size that it ever was before (and that was when Runaways was still current.)
DC remains a stronger draw for me, because they’re still producing books that I want to read, but I’ve been stronger-willed in the last year about only buying books that I enjoy reading. It’s a remarkably freeing experience.
(I miss Renee, though. And pre-reboot Dinah and Barbara. I’ll cope.)
The nice thing about what DC’s done is, they’ve shown they’re more than happy to reboot/stir things up again and again. To me the monies showing up at Kickstarter tells the tale: enough people are tired of the spiral, already.
@John V, with all due respect, please don’t condescend the people who are upset.
The truth is that perhaps you have a luxury as a man that female fans simply don’t have. Perhaps it’s easier for you to think that we all must be young (nope) or be filled with negative energy (nope) to be offended by these things. The reality is that as women we don’t have the luxury of just brushing things off like you might. We have fewer icons to look up to and cherish and fewer positive representations around us and it’s hard to see them destroyed.
Your reference to The Killing Joke is a particularly telling one. People were angry about The Killing Joke (and always will be) because it was an example of a powerful female character that women loved and looked up to being used as a pawn in a story that degraded and gutted her. Barbara Gordon’s rise to heroism as Oracle was special, in part, because it took a situation that had been very unfair to a female character and turned it around on its’ head in a way that was empowering.
So please do not stand there buddy and tell women that we just need to swallow the bitter pill and accept what has been done to two female icons without feeling the emotion and the weight of it. I highly doubt that was the point of Mr. Rucka’s post (in fact I’m sure it wasn’t).
The concept of “NEW” is a funny thing. It’s a fine line to cross. What is the difference between “new” and making choices that tear the soul out of narratives and disregard powerful female icons in the process?
To me, the concept of “NEW” in terms of Superman and Lois Lane here is pretty clear.
A “NEW” story about Superman might have included a new way of exploring the Triangle For 2. In fact, when the relaunch first happened, this was what many people were hoping for as their solace over losing the marriage.
“NEW” was George Perez’s revelation (before he left the Superman book in disgust) that it was his plan and intention to write the Superman book from the perspective that Lois had KNOWN Clark was SUperman from the get-go because she, “is just too smart.” Perez’s intention was that she would always know and that that knowledge was going to create a “new” scenario going forward for the entire narrative. That would have been “NEW.”
“NEW” would have been allowing Wonder Woman to engage in a relationship on-page with Steve Trevor ( as opposed to bringing back her most famous love interest only to use him as a pawn) and exploring al the different dynamics between STeve and Diana in a modern context. How DOES a human man in the year 2012 feel about being in a relationship with a woman who can overpower him? Wouldn’t it be a revelation if we learned that Steve was not threatened by Diana’s power and was ok with allowing her to lead? That would have been “NEW.”
Even a concept with a different timeline (thought truthfully it doesn’t seem so “different” anymore post new 52) like Smallville was a “NEW” approach to the character as it found a way to introduce Lois and Clark when he was 17 and she was 18 or 19 and created a narrative where they circled around each other for years, fighting, hiding attraction, sharing special moments together and ultimately falling madly in love. That actually was “NEW” and different.
But there is a point when “NEW” and the way in which “NEW” is marketed and publicized crosses over that boundary into a different territory. A territory in which the guts and soul of mythos that have shaped and defined a culture are disrespected and thrown in the garbage in a way that is harder to swallow.
I have no idea what Geoff and Jim’s long term goals are with this upcoming relationship. I have no idea if it will be poorly written or well written.
But I do know two things for certain:
1.) Supporting the idea that Wonder Woman is a sex object and “sidekick” “girlfriend’ figure as opposed to a protagonist in her own story is a huge mistake that is going to be detrimental long term to the character in the WAY men perceive her going forward. There is a subset of male fans who have always viewed Wonder Woman as a sex object and attempted to re-purpose her for their own vision and use as opposed to honoring who she truly is and what she stands for. DC used to refuse to cater to those people because it was essential that DC upheld the line that Diana did not exist to belong to men because she wasn’t here for men or their gross sex fantasies about how hard she could “take it” during sex (gross btw)—she was here for women. DC has now given them permission to view her this way.
2.) A Superman story where Superman is not struggling in some form with his passion/lust/sexuality/love for the very flawed and mortal Lois Lane—whether she be his wife, his girlfriend, or simply the friend who sits next to him at his desk that he loves from afar— is not a story about Superman.
A story in which Lois Lane’s humanity and the way that humanity impacts both Superman and his identity as Clark Kent in powerful ways that drive the heart and soul of the narrative is not a story about Superman.
It then becomes a story about a “NEW” character who has stolen Superman’s name but will never really be him. It’s like re-telling Romeo and Juliet except that Romeo goes back to Rosaline as opposed to drinking the poison. It’s like re-telling Gone With the Wind except that Rhett Butler didn’t actually love Scarlett O’Hara because she was “just there.” It’s like re-telling the Lord of the Rings franchise and deciding that Aragorn’s journey isn’t torn up inside by the knowledge that his lover is immortal and he is not.
There are some “new” choices you can make and still keep the soul of who Superman is–and by proxy, what makes him also Clark Kent—intact. The suit? His belt buckle? (Really Jim Lee?) Those are all superficial changes. Even killing his parents off at a younger age doesn’t fundamentally change the narrative. Removing Lois Lane from the equation in every meaningful way is not one of them. Period.
Here’s the thing about Killing Joke — why is that “unfair to a female character” any more than it would’ve been “unfair to the elderly” if Joker had crippled Alfred?
I certainly agree female characters have been mistreated in comics for years. I do not agree, however, that they should be immune to bad things happening to them in the name of a good story, which The Killing Joke absolutely was.
Respectfully, I’d like your thoughts, because this is a common theme in the Internet comics community that I’ve never quite understood.
Because crippling and torturing Barbara in that story was done exclusively to further the arc of other *male* characters, specifically Com. Gordon and to a lesser extent Batman and the Joker. This is part of a well-known pattern in comics sometimes referred to as “Women in Refrigerators”, during which a female character is subjected to trauma in order for a male character to grow or angst. The Ur-example of this trope is Kyle Rainer’s girlfriend, who was killed and then literally shoved into a fridge for Kyle to discover, so that Kyle would have a grief/anger drive.
Crippling Barbara was sadistic, and when asked if he could, reportedly DC Editorial consulted and then told Alan Moore, “Go ahead, cripple the bitch.” This is not an attitude of respect for Barbara as a character or as a woman.
HMC, the answer to your question would require a response much longer than I’m able to give at the moment.
If you are genuine curious as to what the difference is between abuse of female characters and genuine drama in a narrative that is shared equally amongst the sexes, I deeply encourage you to look through the archives at Gail Simone’s personal blog where she has talked in depth about this.
There is also a weekly round-up of articles written about women in the genre handled by one of the women that used to run When FanGirls Attack called “Dispatches From the Fridge.” http://fridgedispatch.blogspot.com/ There are more articles than I can count on this blog that talk at length about the differences and break them down for you.
However, I’ll do what I can to break it down for you the best that I possible can.
The issue in terms of narratives such as The Killing Joke or, where a character like Lois Lane is concerned, in killing her repeatedly over and over and over again in AUs’ (often in vulgar, violent ways) is that the agency and narrative of this female character becomes solely about the man in question and the agency and impact of the female and how she might react to the situation is stolen.
I’m not sure if you are aware of the callous editorial attitude that was present at the time that “The Killing Joke” went to print but it’s fairly well known that one of the people involved at editorial when that issue was being developed was literally quoted as saying, “Cripple the bitch.”
At the time, Barbara Gordon was a heroic woman with agency and a narrative of her own. She had her own fans and her own legacy. Yet, that legacy was given no attention nor tribute when the decision was made to “cripple the bitch.” She was used only as a plot device to serve Batman.
The reason Barbara Gordon’s rise as Oracle was inspirational was because it was an example of a female character who had been literally shot and “fridged” and taken out of commission rising from the ashes of her oppressors.
In terms of Lois Lane, there are more elseworlds than I can possibly count where she was tortured, raped, beaten and murdered in order to cause Clark Kent the most horrible form of agony possible in the narrative. There are elseworlds where Lex Luthor brutally rapes her and beats her alive as she screams for Clark. There are stories where the writer has her own child kick her in the stomach or hug her too tight to the point of death. (Mind you, Clark Kent never had trouble hugging Martha Kent as a child. )
Now, I know what you are thinking…Lois Lane (was..screw you DC) the person that Superman loved most in the world. So if a writer is looking to cause Superman pain then the ‘obvious” choice is to do something to her. Except…it’s not. It’s not the obvious choice. It’s the lazy, misogynist choice that treats the female in the narrative (in this case a feminist icon for many women) like nothing more than a dead body on the page than a woman with full movitvation and agency.
The most famous example of this happening occurred, ironically, in Kingdom Come. And though KC is a book with many deep themes and interesting subtext, it’s also a book with very troubling gender commentary—commentary that even the author himself, Mark Waid, has himself both acknowledged and apologized for since he wrote the book.
Lois is killed off-page in the book. She serves as a plot device only for Superman. There are no flashbacks to their marriage. We don’t see her die. We don’t see her fight to the death for her life. (As we know Lois would.) We only saw that in the books published after the fact that were trying to correct the problem. We don’t see her have any kind of agency at all. We don’t even hear her called by NAME until much later in the story. She exists solely to be Clark’s dead wife—a plot device of a dead body driving the narrative.
The answer to your question isn’t that bad things can’t happen to women. They can. The problem is that statistically speaking in this genre abuse of and objectification of characters in this way is almost EXCLUSIVELY done to women. Men have bad things happen to him. Sometimes, they die. But most of the time…if something bad happens or if they die…it’s in a way where their AGENCY is in place and their power and life is respected. Their power is respected.
Male characters are not raped, or brutally sexually assaulted or degraded on the page as plot devices the way that women are. They just aren’t.
That is the difference. But truly, this is a much more complex topic than I can answer for you here on someone else’s blog. I truly encourage you to read up on the subject and see what else you can learn about it.
If you were a human being living on the DC Earth, how would you feel if the two most powerful people began dating each other?
Wouldn’t that be something that would be completely scary? It does open a lot of storyline possibilities.
As for Lois “knowing” Clark was Superman? DC did the right thing in squashing that, as it would have removed all the symbolism behind Clark wearing glasses.
Lois doesn’t know Superman is Clark Kent because she’s blind, not because she’s stupid. It’s the glasses that reach people, because it’s something we can relate to. Everyone views Clark is weak, because he’s different, and everyone can’t see the Superman standing right in front of them. That’s why Byrne’s Superman reboot was destined to fail.
It’s also the biggest mistake Geoege Perez made. How many women (or men) work menial jobs, treated like garbage, and deep down they ate far more capable then the people in charge. Getting rid of Diana Prince was a mistake (it also removes her connection to humanity, much like having Aquaman not being half-human). Getting rid of Steve Trevor as. Love interest was also a mistake, as it turned Diana into the Virgin Mary.
I’m not against Clark and Diana dating, just as I would not be opposed to Lois Lane and Steve Trevor dating, but it does fly in the ace of what made those characters unique.
Hmmm, I’m waffling.
I should also point out that the Steve Trevor/Diana Prince/Wonder Woman love triangle is just as powerful as the Superman/Lois/Clark one is. Until Steve Trevor was as blind as Lois.
No. You are wrong.
People relate to Clark through his heart.
Insisting that Lois must remain “blind” does an unfair disservice to her character as opposed to treating her like a person.
Further, it is unfair to put the burden on Lois to “see” through a disguise.
The history of the franchise is that Lois always figures it out. In the silver age, sexism forced Superman to go out of his way to keep it from her. But she always knew the truth.
Perez was 100% correct.
Not allowing Lois to know the truth and putting that burden on her without resolution is a sexist callback that has no place in an equal narrative in 2012.
Also, while I much prefer Birthright, claiming that Bryne’s Superman was a failure is factually inaccurate. The books sold very well in the 90’s under that origin including Death of Superman which is still the most successful book of all time.
Personally I think we needed to get Bryne to eventually find the happy medium between the Alien and the human. Sometimes you have to swing in one direction to find the medium.
People connect with Clark through his heart. Period. Keeping Lois in the dark forever disrespects her and reeks of sexism that no longer belongs. Eventually she deserves to be able to have agency of her own with full honesty and disclosure. It is at that point that some of the most beautiful emotional narratives are then able to take place.
Please excuse the typo above: I clearly meant to say ” A story in which her humanity DOES NOT impact the narrative…”
No worries at all – a very nicely written, and nicely considered, post, M.!
Imagine that you’ve never read a Superman or Wonder Woman book before, but you see this cover on your news feed. It grabs attention, it forces you to have an opinion. It did it’s job. But that’s about all I can really say for it.
The only thing I get tired of more than seeing these money-grab stunts is my own personal reaction to them. I “broke up” with most mainstream comics almost two years ago. I don’t buy them, I don’t tweet about them, I don’t podcast about them. But somedays it feels like everyone keeps talking about my ex-girlfriend and all the bad decisions she’s making that make her even less recognizable as the person I was attracted too all those years ago. Forgive me for abusing an non-proportionate metaphor.
Stories we love are personal and intimate. Writers/artists exploit the brain’s natural compulsion to empathize and emote, which can be wonderful or irresponsible. But the feelings you get from a good story aren’t fake, even though the characters are fictional. Superman is fictional, but your own laughter, excitement, and tender heart are all real and all yours and you take them with you after the issue is read. This is why it’s only natural to have feeling of excitement or outrage when we see news like this.
We as consumers habitually give our trust over to the creators. We give them our hearts and our minds and let them do as they wish every time we read a story, or play a game, or watch a movie, etc. And LISTEN, some creators don’t deserve that trust. It’s up to you to decided who will treat you well by entertaining, inspiring, or educating you in the way you feel you deserve.
Life it too short and our hearts are too precious to buy art that makes us feel awful.
Hold fast, dear readers.
@Kyle,
I agree with you. And for what it’s worth—I think you have done the right thing. I’ve been looking for a reason to break with DC Comics for a long time now. I kept buying after the new 52 because I had enough people harass me for being “close minded” that I convinced myself that it was the right thing to give the new regime a chance. Heartbreak after hearbreak later as a female fan….I’ve had just about all I can take.
I think the most offensive thing about the marketing campaign for this particularly stunt is how deeply it catered to a culture that treats women like objects and places our sole value in our beauty and our sexuality.
If you go back and read the initial press release for this pairing the wording and angle is very clear. The fact that both Superman and Wonder Woman are “gods” “above us” and that they are both “beautiful” is hammered home again and again.
Even creators within the industry—(most of whom are all white men) referencing that misogynist essay written by Larry Niven over and over again. The essay itself has deep, deep roots in misogyny. The very fact that a professional in the industry would continue to reference that essay—an essay that jokes about tearing a woman apart during sexual intercourse—and treat it it as something valid and worth givine credence to is very telling about the kind of culture we live in.
To be blunt…the way this marketing campaign was handled is a product that comes from the same culture where men can stand up and question if a woman has been “legitimately raped” or try to pass invasive laws about ultrasounds or female Doctor’s appts. in a way that makes it clear that in the year 2012, the United States culture still supports and encourages the objectification and ownership of womens’ bodies.
One glance at the comments sections in almost every press release for this new relationship and your blood will run cold. Because it’s clear right away the KIND of person this was meant to appeal to. Hundreds of degrading comments about Wonder Woman’s vagina. Degrading comments about Lois Lane’s mere “human vagina” —the entire perpsective geared entirely about the physical nature of these women and how they relate to the sex fantasies of men.
The problem is….I expect that there will always be “pigs” that treat women this way. As a woman, I don’t have the luxury of thinking otherwise as this is our life experience from birth.
No…the real offense comes when a company–here DC Comics—openly endorses, markets and pushes that angle on the general public and preys to the manipulation of a culture that is deeply, deeply rooted in sexism.
People want to know why thousdands of people were reblogging DCWomanKickingAss’s outrage over this and saying that they wanted ot throw up. THAT is why. It’s about so much more here than sheer love of characters. It’s the way in which DC preyed and catered to truly offensive gender issues with this marketing campaign.
And because we live in the culture we do….very few people even called them on it.
@ M: Indeed.
This seems to be bringing out the basest of the base if you will. The puerile comments about all this is disheartening at best. If I hear Larry Niven referenced one more time, I think I’ll scream.
I realize DC has a particular demographic they’re targeting and it’s the 18-30 male. However, since the reboot, I’m thinking it’s even narrower than that.
It seems to me at least that they are targeting a subset within the 18-30 male demographic. The type that this kind of thing appeals to, the people who view women as objects. This doesn’t include all or even most men.
It seems to me they’re fighting for a dwindling audience while everybody else throws their hands up and walks away, both men and women.
And with this post you have won yourself a new reader. I’ve been really limited in what I’ve been purchasing from my comic store but I think I have a new trade to get.
I don’t have a problem with going in a different direction even though I don’t like or agree with it.
I think your advice is spot on in that we readers need to stop buying what we don’t like in hopes it might get better. These are corporate characters and what matters to any corporation is the bottom line.
If this doesn’t sell then they’ll change direction. Conversely, all the words in the world won’t matter if this makes money. I am betting on a short term spike in sales. I don’t know what will happen in the next few months after the novelty wears off.
However, the only way DC will change direction is if this experiment falls flat sales wise.
I have to say though, for me, it isn’t about condemning DC (DiDio, Lee, Johns) for going in a different direction. Instead it’s the way they rolled it out.
I was 21 when the crisis happened. I wasn’t completely thrilled with the idea, I engaged in debate and discussion on usenet. However I felt, because of the way DC handled it, that it would be an interesting ride no matter what happened. Perhaps it felt different because it wasn’t an “event” even though it seems like one in hindsight. One thing for sure, I never felt disrespected as a customer.
The roll out of this current reboot has felt very different to me. Yes, I’m a lot older so there is that variable. However, it’s also the snide comments from DiDio and Lee that haven’t been helping.
For example, when DiDio and Lee announced the reboot of the marriage, they did so in the most callous manner. They gave the story to TMZ and then whomever was running the DC twitter feed callously retweeted the TMZ link with a “it’s true”.
DiDio and Lee then gave interviews getting the Lois&Clark marriage history completely wrong. DiDio claimed it was because of the TV show any of this happened and implied DC was only righting a wrong. This is revisionist history and completely untrue.
What really happened has been documented in books and live action. All DiDio had to do was watch the Doomsday extra included with the animated Superman : Doomsday movie to know what really happened. That is, the couple was engaged at the end of 1990 and there was a loose outline to have them married in Superman 75, which is when he ended up being killed. This was a way to stall wedding plans to wait on the TV show to catch up.
To give current DC management credit, they’ve been consistent in saying that Lois & Clark were not going to happen post reboot. Nothing in Action or Superman gave hope otherwise, except for the odd happenings in Action 12 where Superman hallucinates he’s married to Lois and says it’s his dream come true. That was out of left field to say the least.
However, yet again, it’s the way DC handled breaking the news of this latest turn of events. They do a PR blitz that is akin to rubbing salt in the wound. Rather than handle it with respect towards readers who supported them in the past during the Lois&Clark relationship years, they were dismissive and even taunting.
Then there is how they’re handling Wonder Woman. She has been a role model for young girls for decades. I remember when she was on Ms. Magazine. Now she’s a “sexy” sidekick?
More than anything, I think this latest is most problematic for Wonder Woman. I don’t know why DC has such a problem with Steve Trevor as her love interest. My guess is because it upsets the traditional male/female dynamic. My guess is that it makes some uncomfortable that the man is not physically dominant.
With Superman the gender roles are back in traditional sync. He is physically stronger or at least on par with her. It’s the “power” couple as they put it.
The interviews they’ve been giving remind me of the pre reboot ones. Lee, DiDio & Johns crow about this pairing , retweeting the GMA segment (which wasn’t very favorable to the pairing).
This is all very reminiscent of how they announced the marriage reboot, callous toward those people who were fans of that dynamic.
However, I completely understand that all my words and disgust isn’t going to change one thing. It’s only if all the people who don’t like it and rage on-line drop the books and do not buy.
If that doesn’t happen then indeed the majority has spoken and they will continue on this path.
Having now read the JL issue in question, I assume I have missed something else. Perhaps it was the marketing for this event, or discussions about it somewhere. While I didn’t particularly like this issue in general nor the idea of the relationship in particular and thought the scene in which it occurs to be weak, it didn’t seem of a character to raise many of the concerns I’ve seen expressed. It could get bad in future issues, of course.
I think you need to go back and re-read what people’s concerns are.
Much of the problem is the sub-set of comics culture to which this relationship was created to appeal and the underlying gender problems that plague the relationship.
All you need to do is spend 5 seconds reading the comments on some of the promotional articles for this issue to see what the problem is. If you can get through the sex jokes about Diana having a strong enough vagina to take a “super load” and if you can get through the commentary about Lois not being “beautiful enough or having a strong enough vagina for Clark to pound” without your blood running cold then I commend you.
There are uncomfortable problems with this relationship because of the kind of conversation it inspires and supports and the kind of gender roles it not only condones but encourages.
It’s not so simply as to say, “It was weak but didn’t seem to be a concern.”
It’s a concern.
Thank you for the answer, indirect though it was. I don’t read much promotional material, and actively avoid reading comments to anything on the internet, even for 5 seconds, except for a few sites such as this one. So all I had to go on was the book itself. Perhaps you noticed something when you read it, apart from DC’s preening and prurient internet kids.
“If you can get through [gross stuff] without your blood running cold then I commend you.” — Surely not! Such callousness isn’t really commendable.
Anyway, a reply works for an answer.
I honestly didn’t mean for it to be indirect. I truly thought we made it clear in some of our other comments why the nature of the relationship—no matter how it was executed—was problematic on several levels. I’m sorry if that was unclear.
I didn’t buy the issue and I won’t purchase anything that includes the relationship in the future.
I have, however, seen the kiss page that was leaked to the press and obvioisly the cover. Both drawings by Jim Lee are stolen images from earlier Superman/Lois romantic moments where the women have literally been interchanged.
There quite literally is not a more famous Superman/Lois romantic moment in comics or in live action than the embrace in front of the moon. The cover was also a stolen image from Jim Lee’s Superman/Lois love scene in For Tomorrow. The comparisons were raised to Lee and he admitted them.
M: I’m not being snarky here, but what is the “embrace in front of the moon”? What issue or movie is it from? You claim it’s “literally” the most romantic and iconic Superman/Lois moment pretty much ever, but I’m having trouble locating it on Google.
Eric, I know you aren’t trying to be snarky. But I truly have to ask how familiar you are with Superman if you don’t know this.
It’s been done between Superman/Lois so many times at this point that it would take hours to post all the panels.
It’s also a very famous scene in live action as it calls back to Chris and Margot holding each other in front of the Moon in the original Superman movie, Dean and Teri on “Lois and Clark” and even Tom and Erica on Smallville.
Lois and Superman embracing with the moon and stars as their backdrop is a classic image.
Here are a few though…
“Between them is a love such as the world has never seen…
A love between a mortal woman and a seeming god from another star.” That’s Bronze AGe Superman Family book
http://teamclarklois.tumblr.com/post/19129151440/superman-family-206
Valentine’s Day Issue
http://teamclarklois.tumblr.com/post/17617657920
Jim Lee (the SAME artist) actually drew this.
http://teamclarklois.tumblr.com/post/12624945357/superman-v2-217
http://teamclarklois.tumblr.com/post/30321222114/you-gonna-kiss-me-or-what-lois-lane
All Star Superman where they actually stand on the moon as a switch up from the usual
http://malshun.tumblr.com/post/25585303213/superman-and-lois-lane-kissing-all-star-superman
“Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman” Look at the dialogue.
“I want you to know that I love you….and you’re not ALONE anymore.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LQMH53vuqU&feature=relmfu
Smallville “Crimson”—Clark becomes infected with REDK and no longer feels the need to hide his powers. Lois accepts him right away and instead of hiding he instead feels a new sense of pride and freedom in his abilities. He takes her up the Daily Planet roof and they embrace as the fly together directly in front of the moon.
SUperman: The Movie. The flying sequence. At the end of the scene they hold each other instead with the moon and stars as their back-drop.
This doesn’t include the fact that the image that Jim Lee chose from the cover was ripped off of his original piece for Superman and Lois from “For Tomorrow.” (Something he admitted on twitter btw.)
You can see close to 1,000 people commenting on it in anger and disgust.
http://luanna255.tumblr.com/post/30003593079/dreamrabbit-carolferriss-lemonvampire-im
I realize you weren’t trying to be snarky. But these images were really obviously stolen. It was very clear immediately to people who have followed Superman.
Ah, well, that explains it. I was looking for ONE image or ONE event. The idea of “Lois & Superman in front of the moon” is common enough, but I thought there would be one very clear spot that Lee was ripping off.
For my part, I think the cover to JL #12 is so poorly done that it’s almost irrelevant who he might be ripping off. That image does not convey love, passion, respect, or even interest to me. Look at how straight-as-a-board WW’s body position is. All that image says to me is “man want to love mannequin, not real woman.”
Is there any basis for the Wonder Woman-Superman relationship, comparable to what a reader would be given in a competent romance novel? Or is it manipulation–DC Editorial deciding that they want a romance, because it will create controversy and set up an event later?
The DC characters are popular, but they’re only characters, and only successful characters to the extent that the stories they’re used in succeed as stories.
To claim that the success or failure of the stories they’re in doesn’t matter because they’re superheroes, corporate-owned superheroes at that, and bring in more money as characters on T-shirts, in cartoons, etc., than they ever will as literary characters doesn’t justify transparent manipulation. It means that they’re products, and readers should never even start to buy the comics they’re in.
The difference between the success of the characters as icons and their success as literary elements is why, for example, Bendis’s run on the Avengers titles constitutes a mountain of junk. The premise for “Avengers Disassembled” was fatally flawed; subsequent events/stories didn’t have endings; in terms of development, nothing happened, from 2005 to now. If one were to throw away all the issues written from 2005 to now, nothing would be lost because, from a literary perspective, there was nothing created to be lost.
Readers don’t want literary fiction; they want, and should get, competent genre fiction. Treating the characters as products doesn’t produce that.
SRS
From what I understand, it’s their shared sense of alienation that brings them together.
I’m sure the fact that they’re both super hot didn’t hurt, either.
Except that making Superman isolated was a contrivance of the new 52. He was not isolated prior to this. He was happy.
Writing Diana as isolated is also a misread of her character.
And two people being “super hot” is the flimsiest, most shallow reason I’ve seen to be together.
I read a great quote the other day:
“Superman/Wonder woman is what happens when people mistakenly believe that their heroes are as shallow and superficial as they are.”
Frankly all this talk about beauty is gross to me. What a shallow view on love.
While I’m very sad that Superman and Diana will be entering into an affair — relationship? — which removes the beauty of the alien/human love that Kal and Lois had, the news isn’t as upsetting as it would have been if I were reading the comics featuring those characters. But I stopped reading those books a year ago. I went from reading 35 or so DC comics a month when the DCnU hit to around 5 or 6. I’m putting some of that savings into books by other publishers. I doubt DC notices or cares. After 50 plus years reading comics, including DC, I know I am not the demographic they want: nearly 60-year-old woman.
I don’t have a problem with change, but I would have preferred they just start completely over, reboot the entire universe, rather than this mess of trying to keep track of what’s changed and what hasn’t and who is their previous age and who isn’t. The only way I’ve been able to enjoy Nightwing is by pretending this is now Earth-DCnU, but I can’t bring myself to think the rest of the universe is an A/U Earth. They just aren’t interesting enough to me, anymore.
I think these idiots are leaving behind Siegel and Shuster and connecting the name “Superman” with the more ominous historical uses of the word would be something they, out of abject stupidity, would do. This idea is not something Siegel and Shuster would EVER write. It smacks more of certain 1930’s contemporaries of theirs. Eugenics, that is what this idea reeks of. While we are getting rid of Superman’s connection to the rest of humanity and breeding him out well, lets generally get rid of the depictions of the disabled, the overweight, ugly and the old. Getting rid of the old DCU was nothing more than a big book burning! Well. at least we can know that the new coupling is rooted in a philosophy that Superman’s creators despised. Good going DC! Who the hell cares! Nobody at DC anymore. Hey, if they can not be bothered to learn the history of their own comic book characters, how could we expect them to know when they are getting a bit too creepy with the Eugenic paring language?
Well I agrew with Mr Rucka but I am kind of stunned he has to tell disgrunted fans not to buy something they have been complaining about since a year now. Were they not already boycotting? You would also be shocked to see how these same fans behave on other sites and their utter disrespect for people Greg calls colleagues. Being hurt over fictional characters needs to be put into perspective I think. It is a form of entertainment. That’s it. You can vote with your dollars. But dollars speak as well in that it says who wants to read it. All these guys work hard for a living to create and people need to respect that. Greg of all people should know how fans can laud you one minute and crucify you the next when they don’t get what they want/expect. The soap boxing is getting out tiresome and overly sanctimonious now.
Men who engage in sexist behavior that degrades women will be called out on it.
Mr. Rucka does not condone women being forced to be silent when we see something offensive.
He, of all people, would, I believe, encourage women to speak up.
Also, please save the condescending speech about fiction. Everyone knows this is fiction. But women know that sexism in our fiction has a cultural impact on our lives.
By trying to shout us down you are a part of the problem.
Women who point out problems in narratives are harassed, bullied and stalked. We are degraded.
Sue from DCwoman has been stalked and threatened.
Laura Hudson was stalked.
I had a man tell me the other day I deserved to be raped repeatedly.
This is our existence. Do not dare try to shout us down and do not for a second try to imply that Mr. Rucka, of all people , would condone telling us to be quiet.
Personally, I am excited by the storyline. We’ve had 75 years of Clark and Lois. I think it’s fun to think about and explore Clark and Diana beyond a limited else world’s story. I’ve been a lifelong reader of dc (since 1980). I wasn’t thrilled about the new 52 and the “destruction” of the continuity that I knew. But it’s actually been fun seeing these characters in new roles and interactions.
Superman has been strong for 75 years too.
He has been an alien for 75 years.
A reporter.
Why dont we just change all that?
He’s loved Lois Lane longer than he has been able to fly. Before Lex Luthor. Before the Kents even had names. Before Jimmy Olsen. Before Perry White.
It’s sad to me that in 75 years the thing that people suggest is ok to replace is the woman.
Is that not telling to you about the kind of audience this caters to? Do you truly not get that?
If 75 years of history needs to be “new” then fine.
But this singles out the woman and treats her as an interchangeable variable. That’s a problem. A serious cultural problem.
So ok. We have had 75 years of Superman being a strong alien. I’m ready and excited for “new” too. So let’s just change that too.
Right. Only the woman is made a variable.
I think I see what you’re arguing, Greg. I even agree in a way, that a DC reboot is a good idea in theory. Though I think there’s a flaw in this logic of new DC is embracing. The trouble is.. DC’s power isn’t in the New. It’s in the old.. the nostalgic.. the traditional. If comic readers want new, that’s the territory of Image or Dark Horse or Oni or any other publisher. Even Marvel is more about new than DC.. even if only abut thirty years nostalgia.
These are not brand names. They’re characters. With power that comes from a rich history of stories. To totally toss that aside for some quick newness? I think you’re giving away your power base for a quick hit of juice. And, yeah, how long will that newness last anyway?
And I also question if things are actually new enough even for that. It’s not a total reboot. It’s a soft reboot. We still have Damien Wayne as part of four Robins from before running around. (None of the other Batgirls funny enough. No girls allowed in the cave.) Green Lantern was advertized as not being rebooted. And that’s rather a problem. It’s not really a new administration overseeing it all. It’s still the same old crew as when you and others were trying to make decent Wonder Woman or Batwoman books in spite of stupid stupid decisions from editorial. This is still the same company that gave us crap like Amazons Attack while kicking aside a New York Times bestselling author like Jodi Piccolt and all the readers she could bring just to maintain their good old boys club of silly crossover events with all the intellect of a ten year old boys smashing action figures together and thinking girls will give them cooties.
And I think this is in the reboot too. It’s not really new. It reeks of bad 90s comics and gimmicks. Not to be confused with the good comics and DC Comics of the 90s. Wasn’t DC’s Kingdom Come in the 90s a critique of the flashy Image books and their use of the dark anti hero and how that shouldn’t be applied to heroes like DC has? Isn’t that exactly what’s going on? And speaking of Kingdom Come, Superman and Wonder Woman as a couple? Is that really all that new of a concept? I like the comment critics have that Alan Moore wrote it off ages ago in For the Man Who Has Everything, “Too predicable.”
So.. is this DC reboot -really- new? Or more of the same garbage that has been holding DC Comics back for the past decade? Just in a shiny superficial coat of paint. The appearance of new. It’s the same old bad repackaging of the old as pseudo-new. Now with mere brand names and none of the actual characters people loved, the very thing people kept going back to DC Comics for.
I could make a case for both sides of this debate but is it not difficult for DC and Marvel to truly embrace new ideas since what sells best for them is characters that have been around for decades? While I would argue the importance of respecting the history of the characters (and I agree with you to an extent), you make the point that they are not brand names but characters. Unfortunately, Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, they are brand names to an extent. Don’t misunderstand that either, I prefer quality over quantity, but throw Batman’s face on a T-shirt and someone will buy it. Or Spider-Man edition fruit roll-ups in the supermarket. I don’t think the concept of what is truly ‘new’ (and you’re right, the concept of Superman and Wonder Woman isn’t truly new, but just now ‘officially’ canon, at least until the next reboot in 20 years, and there is a sect of fans who are very uptight about what is officially canon) should be completely relegated to Image, Oni, Dark Horse, etc. DC should respect their history while building new ground in my opinion, as should Marvel. My favorite title, Starman, despite its flaws, built on its history while giving a new character for fans such as myself to admire. Ironically, its spinoff, The Shade, had the misfortune of being published in the New 52, when Jack Knight really could not have possibly existed in New 52’s history, but The Shade was tweaked to reflect the character designs of certain characters, Deathstroke in particular.
Sorry to ramble but I think DC needs a little more than a year for the New 52 to be evaluated entirely. I don’t agree with many things they are doing creatively, nor do I feel the need to have the Justice League to be perpetually 23 but I respect the fact that DC, at the end of the day, is in the business of telling stories, and they have to work with what they have. Part of this reminds me of Jeph Loeb’s ‘Hush’ arc. Very little of that story featured anything ‘new’ in terms of storytelling. It was more like a ‘Best of’ arc for Batman’s character. ‘Batman kissing Catwoman’, ‘Batman fighting Superman’, ‘Batman almost kills the Joker’ (but all drawn by Jim Lee).
I completely understand the discussion of the disrespect female characters have had in the past and currently in comics, but I do not really understand the argument that this relationship between Superman and Wonder Woman reduces the latter’s status to ‘sidekick’ or ‘girlfriend’. I have not read Justice League #12 yet, and I imagine it will be the deciding factor if I will have continued interest in DC’s events like ‘Trinity War’ and etc. but I am fairly certain Wonder Woman will continue to have her own book and solo adventures. And based on interviews from Azzarello, concerning his prior New 52 work and specifically to his ongoing Wonder Woman run, he does not seem overly concerned with what other DC creators are planning in their titles (such as his comments about being able to do his own thing with the New Gods, separate from whatever Geoff Johns is planning in Justice League).
But, even in saying that …
One thing I would have loved, since hell will freeze over before they have only one Batman or Superman title on the stands (and yes, Batman will always be my favorite A-lister, because I am a cliche in that regard, but I still wish he didn’t have several books, whether his own or spinoffs), they should have attempted two Wonder Woman titles (she deserves it in my opinion). Or, heaven forbid, try headlining female characters in their own titles who were not spinoffs of Batman and Superman. Or even, create some new ones (hell, even new male superheroes, although, admittedly, this seems hard for DC and Marvel to sell to their fans). DC Universe Presents would be the perfect showcase for testing the waters on new female characters in particular (such as James Robinson’s daughter of Vandal Savage).
The argument about sexism in comics is valid and, whether others off boards such as this will admit it, it does exist. It may be intentional, or the result of a disproportionate ratio of women to men creators AND readers, or simply ignorance about what an ‘empowered’ female character is (such as the new Starfire and Catwoman being reduced to virginal male fantasies), or other scenarios I am not currently thinking of. But regardless of my disappointment about several aspects of the New 52, I’m not worried about ‘Wonder Woman’ being retitled ‘Superman and Wonder Woman, the Amazonian Friend With Benefits’ anytime soon. Depending on the treatment of their relationship by Geoff Johns (as I feel he will be making the most of it for his personal stories for DC), I may change my mind in a few months. But time will tell how much of my paycheck DC receives each month and whether they will continue to entertain me with their escapist fiction.
This post is all over the place, since I have a term paper’s worth of things to say about the New 52 and what it means to me as a fan who will always love the medium. But regardless, until we see a distasteful art sequence of Superman and Wonder Woman fornicating in the clouds and Wonder Woman completely devoid of any of the characteristics that have made her a fictional female role model and cultural icon, I’ll keep reading (there’s always Greg’s run on Wonder Woman to reread if you want to see her at her finest, not to brown nose, but it was good reading).
I wondered myself how people would react if it had been Batman they decided to pair Wonder Woman with as opposed to Superman. Personally I think Batman and Wonder Woman make a better match just because of their natures. Batman is one of the best hand to hand combatants in the DC universe, and Diana was raised by a warrior race. They spar with each other to help make each other better. Diana doesn’t even need to do that really with all of her power, but in my opinion it makes her a much more respectable hero than Superman, and why I don’t think she would want anything to do with him.
That’s one of the things I’ve always hated about Superman, although I guess it fits him because of his powers. He’s a lazy hero. You never see him train in fighting or anything else. He’s the exact opposite of Batman. When you take away his powers, he’s worthless, but if you were to give Batman powers he would be exponentially more dangerous.
I don’t see them as a couple except for the simple reason DC is putting them together, they are the most powerful male and female heroes in their universe, the two shining hero figures. However, that was one of the things I always liked about the animated series toying with Batman and Wonder Woman being a couple. The brightness of her character helped give a little softer edge to Batman. Wonder Woman doesn’t really contribute anything to Superman as a character in my opinion, like I think Lois did. Lois helped ground him and make him a little more human.
They’re free to do what they want. It’s their characters, and if it doesn’t sell they’ll change it. I’ve stopped reading, I’m just not a fan of what they’ve done with the New 52.
I think the biggest problem I am having with this pairing is that it really makes NO sense at all. For anyone to say that are not doing this for obvious superficial reasons is a blatant lie. Lie to the public, lie to your publicist, but please oh please remember to thine own self be true.
Here we paired the World’s Strongest Man with the World’s Strongest Woman – two beautiful people who have nothing in common at all who are paired together simply for the physicality of it. I challenge anyone to truly think this through and then tell me that it isn’t so. If this New 52 is supposed to be one that “the fans can relate to” then this Superman is not someone I want to know. And that makes the SuperFan in me want to truly despair.
Wonder Woman comes from an island where she was raised by warrior women and never knew the relationship (friendship or otherwise) of a man until she met Steve Trevor. She has been written by Geoff and Jim as a sad two-dimensional Xena Warrior Princess knock-off who swings her sword first and asks questions later. “It is decided then, we shall take his eyes!”
Indeed.
How in the world would that person be attractive to Superman? He was raised in a small Kansas town and learned to respect life and his role in it. His adoptive father challenged him on his deathbed to use his abilities to help people and make the world a better place. As a farmer he would have learned to respect life and the delicate balance that exists. While it is not within continuity, I have to paraphrase a quote the book “Superman: Peace.”
“Not every seed will make it… but they should all be given a chance to grow.”
So…. with that in mind. How could we see that a “relationship” between Superman and Wonder Woman would ever work? They come from two very VERY different worlds. The only attraction would be purely physical in the beginning and that was already explored by John Byrne back in Action Comics # 600.
Does that mean Superman is somebody who simply is looking to sleep with Wonder Woman because he is lonely? Because she’s attractive? Never thinking that they would never “work?” Is the same true for Wonder Woman?
To tell me that they are simply doing this because it “makes more sense” than the Superman/Lois pairing is a horrible untruth. I have to agree with the poster “M.” This is pure flesh-fodder and eye-candy. Sad but true.
@M & Maya
I agree with all you’ve written. Diana is my favorite DC character. In my opinion, Superman and Diana don’t make for the most interesting couple (DC_old Diana dated men who were distinctly normal–Trevor Barnes and Agent Nemesis from Gail’s run).
but it isn’t clear YET that Diana will take a subordinate role to Clark. Cynically, it is a reasonable assumption, but it hasn’t happened YET
(I’m still bummed by the return of Superboy in 2010 Teen Titans and Cassie’s instant backseat from team leader to doting, passive girlfriend.
An anomaly about DCnU is that Jim Lee did try to “cover Diana up”–giving her long trousers and a jacket, but fan outrage forced DC to revert to the “classic” swim suit. (Granted, one might be tempted to argue that Diana’s costume change was entirely a publicity stunt… Gail’s run included a few different costumes for Diana, but DC didn’t forward the info to USA Today….
I generally enjoy DCnU–mainly because it is new stories for “new” characters. But the Catwoman and Starfire junk drove me to drop those titles with a vengeance. I’m headed back to Catwoman to see what Ann Nocenti does, but those two titles were really weird… I didn’t object to the Batman scene so much as Catwoman’s monthly beatings. Every issue depicted her being beaten until tears streamed down her cheeks.
Selina went from being a sly master of her craft who hobnobs with high society to an impulsive amateur with a fetish for stealing from the mob (and getting her butt kicked for it). I guess Winnick was trying to re-establish her “younger days”, but DC_old Selina’s younger days were much more polished…
You’re right, it isn’t clear. However this is the way they are choosing to promote it. DC has gone with Superman “Sexy sidekick” and other ridiculous descriptions which reduce her to the subordinate role instead of an equal partner.
Will the actual story play out differently? I’m betting it will. After the end of the JLI annual, I really don’t know where they are taking this.
The problem is most of the people watching GMA, reading the New York Times and other news reports on this don’t read comic books. I don’t know why it was necessary to reduce Wonder Woman to a sex object to promote this to the general public.
Okay, I do know. It was to titillate, but at the expense of Diana and what Wonder Woman means in the broader sense.
I guess my problem with the New 52 is that I don’t buy the premise: I do NOT grant that DC did this with any sort of sincerity. If they had, we would have had a true reboot. Start fresh from day one and let us know right off that Things Are Different Here. Tell new origin stories, drop some characters, introduce new ones.
They have done a lot of half-measures and coming right to the brink of actual change without going over that hill. Certainly we have a few things that are different, actually different, like the Earth-2 stuff and a handful of the peripheral titles (All-Star Western, Frankenstein, and OMAC) come to mind. Mostly, though, it seems like it really is a chance to shoe-horn in all the stuff – the bad-assery, the mean-spirited heroes who kill on a whim, the tacky* costume changes – that turned me off of most comics in the 90’s.
I don’t mind change in the least, but I would have liked some actual change instead of a poorly-done and (from various comments by creators recently) poorly-thought-out and -managed retread.
*I’ve been told some people don’t know what that means; it’s a somewhat Southern term to refer to clothing or home decorating that is overblown, overdone, taken to and past the extreme, etc.
Everyone wants to see Lois and Clark get back together. Lois is dating other guys, so is Clark supposed to just sit around and wait? Understanding that what we want isn’t always what we get is part of life. To think that Wonder Woman will be defined by Superman is conjecture at best. In the past Batman has said that in many instances, where he needs an issue addressed quickly and without debate, he can count on Wonder Woman to take affirmative and definitive action. Diana is a warrior, but Superman is more of a diplomat. I look forward to seeing Superman defeated or beat up by some foe and Diana shows up and sticks her boot so far up that guy’s ass that he can taste everything she stepped in for the past week. He might end up being Mr. Wonder Woman instead of her becoming Mrs. Superman. Let’s see how this plays out.
Lois was introduced in the new 52 in bed with a man. Not as a reporter. But as an object and Jim Lee told us we were supposed to feel sorry for Clark.
Lois dating other men is a pawn by the editors to get her out of the way to give Clark an excuse to sleep around. That you do not realize that this is what they have done is proof that their goal succeeded.
They put Lois with a random guy to give Clark permission to play the field therefore affirming the sexist idea that men have to prove their manhood by sleeping around.
Diana not defined by Clark? Think again. It’s already happened. One google search brings up disgusting, vulgar comments from the target audience about how Clark was “owed a hot chick” and vulgar comments about how hard she can “take it” during sex. This is what DC subjected Diana to. It’s already done. The damage is done.
DC calculated your reaction of Lois dating very carefully. They did it on purpose so that men would defend Clark’s right to play the field. They did it purposefully and knowingly and you reacted just as they wanted you to.
Jim Lee (as you point out) admitted this is why they did this. Here is just one source to where DC admits they wanted the reader to feel for Clark.
http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2011/07/21/introducing-lois-lane%25e2%2580%2599s-new-boyfriend-jonathan-carroll
This of course is at Lois’s expense. It’s transparent manipulation.
There were many ways to handle this without making Lois the weapon to hurt Clark. Birthright showed how it’s possible to show Clark as an outsider without making Lois the bad guy. In fact she sticks up for Clark, even though she’s not interested in dating him at the moment.
Instead they decided to go this route. Why? For this very reason. So Clark can do whatever he wants with impunity. Lois even tells him to go out and find a lady friend. So what’s a guy to do , right?
The way I see it DC is getting desperate by now and they want to try all tricks to get the readers’ attention. Sales for the reboot are plummeting month after month, most titles now doing round 2010’s numbers or even less, some doing less than 2011(pre-reboot) This is certainly NOT what they had in mind just a year ago. BEFORE WATCHMEN and the first wave of New 52 TPBs gave them a brief boost in sales again but in a few months that willl be gone. Obviously they are bleeding readers at an alarming rate and MARVEL NOW! will only make things much worse for them. Can’t be happier about it! As an old ex DC fan I feel really insulted about the way the treated people like me.
Sales on Superman were high for years with Lois and Clark married. Do not distort the history.
Sales dropped when the choice was made to remove Superman from his own books and remove the Clark Kent identity completely from the narrative.
One of the top selling digital series right now is the Smallville Season 11 series where Lois and Clark are living together and have taken wedding vows. It’s been the #1 book consistently for months now.
DC’s problems with Superman were of their own making. The character wasnt broken. The success of the Smallville book with all the pre new 52 elements in place proved that.
The new 52 Superman book was not a success. It had 3 creative teams in one year and wasn’t selling great.
Also, you are mischaracterizing Greg’s run on Wonder Woman.
Anyone who read that and came out viewing Diana as a “murderer” was not paying attention to the point of the narrative.
As for a changing readership? The problem is a dwindling readership. As the books become less and less accessible to women and people of color and the stories cater more and more to a specific. Subset of men.
The “changed” readership you speak of is what will eventually cast more and more people out of the genre. The print model is dying. That’s why the digital first books are such an important experiment.
But do not mistake this for Superman the character being broken. The character —and Lois Lane—sustained media properties for 75 years. One just ended last year and became one of the biggest grossing DVD Blu ray sets of the year.
DC’s mistakes with the character were what was and is broken. And this stunt will only serve to further isolate the character from his media properties and the millions who love him and Lois in mass media who have no interest on the limited, sexist audience of comics.
Has anybody considered that this has nothing to do with making Superman new or anything to do with creativity, but rather has to do with the consistent legal war between DC and the creators?
Action Comics #4 (the origin of Lois Lane) is one of the issues that has been central to the Seigel/Schuster heirs argument.
First Superman flies rather than jumping, then the costume is changed and now ensuring that Lois is nothing more than a background character who can be shipped off at any moment supports DC’s argument that the current Superman has nothing to do with the Superman that Seigel and Schuster created thereby getting their way to continue using the character even if the S/S heirs win the rights for the old character.
Of course I could be completely wrong (seeing evil conspiracy plots where there aren’t any) and this turns out to be nothing more than another tired comic industry stunt to get a character into mainstream media (it worked).
The idea that this is directly impacted by the lawsuit is a widely held conspiracy theory.
Also, it has nothing to do with Action #4. Lois is present in Action #1 and the triangle begins playing out in that issue from the start.
However, it’s not quite as simple as you are making it.
If DC loses the rights to Lois Lane, they also lose the rights to Clark Kent. Now, it’s absolutely true that DC has been downplaying the Clark Kent identity of Superman a great deal in the last few years—to the book’s detriment and the character’s detriment.
But if they lose Lois….they lose Clark. It’s as simple as that.
You also have to understand the concept of a derivative narrative or product.
The modern Superman story is a derivative narrative inspired and shaped by Siegel and Shuster’s original story. It’s not a case where they can just cut out the things that Siegel created and still have the rights to Superman. It’s just not that simple.
Now, another conspiracy I’ve heard suggests that DC has been intentionally cruel and bitter about Lois Lane since Joanne Siegel died last year out of spite and cruelty for her final letter to Warner Bros—a heartbreaking letter that many people in the press and the public seemed to side with and find very sympathetic.
As you are probably aware, Lois Lane was based, in part, on Joanne Siegel.
It’s still a conspiracy theory. So who knows. But it’s hard not to feel as though DC has gone out of their way to be intentionally spiteful about Lois Lane in the last 2 years.