Action Comics #1000 creative roster revealed

[titansupes]

The panel looks like it was a lot of fun and I hope you had a great time!

I will admit that I was pretty frustrated to read what Marv Wolfman said about Lois.



Sigh. Look, I understand that Wolfman is 71 years old and grew up in a different time. But I'm not sure his age is an excuse here. Because while I can understand thinking this as a more immature reader, the fact that his understanding of the context of Lois and Clark's relationship prior to the Crisis still remains this out of touch is really a shame. It's 2018 and I would really hope that more wisdom might put some of this into better context.

This idea that Lois used to "ignore Clark and wanted the big star" is not fair. It has NEVER been fair to Lois. And men have to stop repeating this sexist lie without the proper context or dialogue about how it came to be. First off, Wolfman's comments ignore that it was not just Lois who "changed" in the 1980's. Clark Kent/Superman went through a massive shift too and it was because he went through such a massive shift that the triangle for 2 changed into something much more subtle and much more reflective of gender dynamics that were progressive and fair to both parties.

But even putting that aside....Clark Kent was the disguise in the early comics. He pretended to be a coward. He pretended to stand by while Lois was sexually assaulted. He wasn't just some "nerd"---he was pretending to be a coward. Lois Lane didn't just love some "big star'---she was rightfully interested in the man who was standing up for injustice and being just as brave and devoted to justice as SHE was. It's so unfair and sexist to keep up this lie that Lois was some mean gold digger because she dared to want the man who was being TRUE to himself vs. the man who was lying about who he was and not being himself. Why should Lois be expected to fall in love with someone who wasn't real? Wolfman says that "he was hurt." Jesus...what about Lois? She was the one being lied to. What about women who identified with her? Does their hurt just not count?

It's also uncomfortable because men like Wolfman grow up wanting to be Superman and yet they punish Lois for wanting to be WITH him. So, essentially, the men get to want the power fantasy of being this heroic guy but then when a woman actually wants to be with the man who stands up and does the right thing...she's the mean one? It's not fair. It has never been fair. The Triangle For 2 prior to the Crisis was so much more complex than just "oh Lois is mean and didn't like Clark Kent." There are deep complexities here and I'm exhausted with older men painting it this way without understanding the context, the societal structure at the time and the way the narrative set Lois up to fail.

It also ignores that we have textual evidence prior to the Crisis that Lois loved CLARK when he was being true to himself. The only reason we got those Mr. and Mrs. Superman stories in the Bronze age was distinctly because we saw first hand that when Clark Kent stopped with the act and just acted like himself and actually pursued her.....she loved him. She married him. She always loved the real person and this should not be ignored because it's important. The dual identity and what parts of Clark are "real" and what parts he's hiding are always playing hand in hand with how Lois feels and how she relates to both Clark Kent AND Superman. To ignore that piece of it is to ignore the story.

It's such a back handed compliment to be like, "Oh but she was still a strong character in the 1930's." Gee, thanks Marv. Yeah, she was. And she had a rich history long before the 1980's just like Clark himself did. Noel Neill was the first woman a lot of girls saw on on TV working alongside the men as an equal. Margot Kidder was a feminist icon for a lot of women in the 70's. A lot of little girls grew up wanting to be journalists distinctly because they saw Lois on screen. She was no less "real" prior to 1985 than Superman himself. Both characters evolved with the times and they did it in reflection of each other.

Anyway, look...I Get it. It is what it is and he's 71 years old. But it's not an excuse to not reflect on the ways in which changing gender roles and sexism over the last 80 years may have influenced the way Lois was treated and perceived. I was so excited to read the transcript from this panel this morning and then I got to the part where they "celebrated" Lois and this is what he said? She just deserves so much better than this back handed stuff. I'm so tired of seeing her history only reflected upon by men through men and without thought or consideration for the context. It's super frustrating. Why were there no women on the panel? Were any women asked to be on it? Different povs are vital for this kind of thing.

Also, I do get that the other men on the panel were all trying to be polite to each other and may have felt odd saying something after Wolfman said this. But someone like Greg Rucka would not have stayed quiet. He would have gently pushed back on this. Neither would Gail Simone etc. Dan Jurgens should NOT have stayed quiet about this. He knows better and knows this is unfair. I think there are gentle and polite ways when you are on a panel like this to very nicely challenge the context of history with these characters and push back a bit on accepted "history" about them and I think that it's vital that people do this for female characters in these kinds of situations. Because if you don't push back on it then these sexist lies continue to become accepted "truths" and continue to go unchecked and unchallenged. And we need to do better in 2018. The myth deserves that much.

Great post. I'm surprised so many are surprised by the content-- I honestly thought it was all pretty clear in the books themselves.

[Gaelforce]

Okay, folks, two things:

1. Let's keep it on topic - Action 1000 and not about the history of feminism in comics.

2. Let's also can the personal commentary and the 'who has read more comics than who' as it just leads to a bunch of unnecessary one-upmanship.

Thanks!

Gaelforce
Supermoderator

[Nelliebly]

I agree with you. This changes so much. And its so obvious. Lois loves the man of Steel Superman, but not the mild mannered reporter Clark Kent is so ingrained in the mythos that we accept that is the truth without even thinking it could be something different.

And i can see it could be great. That's how you do mild mannered reporter now. Don't let it be a secret to Lois for years. At best a year or two, before Lois gets to know the truth. There has to be an impression that he is doing this for the greater good.

Thank you guys so much for this. Truly. I so appreciate that instead of jumping all over me you took the time to try and think about it from Lois's POV and from my POV as a long time female reader.

It really does change EVERYTHING when you look at what we've been fed for years from her POV. It makes complete sense why, in those earlier years, she didn't want to be with Clark Kent.

This is why I (and other women I know) get super frustrated when people celebrate the 80 year history of the character and leave out her POV. To do so means you are only getting half the story and half the story means it's not complete. I'm so glad that I could help provide a different POV and, again, thank you so much for just being open and listening. The 80 year history of this character is so rich and Action Comics #1000 is so exciting. But it's even more exciting to celebrate this milestone with a fuller awareness and context!

[Nelliebly]

Great post. I'm surprised so many are surprised by the content-- I honestly thought it was all pretty clear in the books themselves.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I mean....I think there was a limit back then to what books showed. As you might recall, they were not even allowed to show a kiss between Superman and Lois back in the 1930's. The kiss had to happen off-panel and then they exclaimed that they kissed. So it was absolutely subtle but the context wasn't lost on me at all. Maybe because I've been in that situation (that could have easily happened to me or any woman I know a frat party in college even) and so I recognize when the woman feels threatened in the story. I've always felt it was a very important beat in Action Comics #1 and I think it's important to keep it at the forefront when we talk about the milestone of Action Comics 1000 even just to see how far we've come. Thanks again.

[Nelliebly]

Okay, folks, two things:

1. Let's keep it on topic - Action 1000 and not about the history of feminism in comics.

2. Let's also can the personal commentary and the 'who has read more comics than who' as it just leads to a bunch of unnecessary one-upmanship.

Thanks!

Gaelforce
Supermoderator

Just to be clear---my initial post WAS on topic. I was responding directly to comments that Marv Wolfman made at the panel for Action Comics #1000 for the 80 year celebration of the character. His comments were relevant to the topic because they were specifically in conjunction to the 80th anniversary of Superman and Action #1000 and needed to be addressed. His comments made as he celebrated Action Comics #1000 were sexist and so it was relevant to highlight why they were not appropriate.

I completely agree about the second point and I appreciate you addressing that kind of gate keeping. Thanks again!

[Miles To Go]

Here's the entirety of Simoson and Ordway's story on Newsarama

https://www.newsarama.com/38957-supe...-story.html#s6

[Patrick Gerard]

Thank you very much for this.

The bottom line is that women process media and narratives from a different lens than men do and it is extremely inappropriate for a 40 something man to assume that his POV on what the intentions were here is the only view just as it’s inappropriate for a man to be trying to explain harsssment and assault to women. Also, the idea that because he’s been reading comics for 10 years longer means he ::understands:: sexism better is not only ridiculous but it’s a form of gate keeping.

No one here is even remotely questioning that Jerry Siegel created a strong woman in 1938. What we are discussing is how Lois, as a WOMAN, may have perceived situations that influenced how she felt about Clark vs. Superman and we are discussing how the general public, which is absolutely structured to view things from a male POV, was less empathetic towards her POV of the situations than they should have been. I’m not even going to get into the lecture I got on assault vs. harassment. My POV of that incident is that Lois likely felt she was threatened and assaulted (being forced to dance with someone is extremely uncomfortable) and this colored how she likely viewed Clark.

The very idea that this man thinks it’s ok to belittle and lecture any woman on this site about what “really matters” is a serious problem and contributes to comics and CBR in general being unwelcome and unequal.

I will say that Superman/Clark comes off as a creep circa 1940. Lois ejects him . He persists. He conspires to get them alone together.

The rejection of Siegel and Shuster’s pitch to have her learn his identity stunted both characters.

By the 60s, Superman, not Clark, is the manipulative persona. And due to Lois’ domesticity, infantilized portrayal, and borderline insanity, Superman’s manipulations don’t come of as bad as they did in the 40s. Largely, he’s trying to keep her away.

A lot of 70s fans (like Wolfman) came to see Lois as a drag and favored Lana or Diana (or Zatanna or Black Canary or Batgirl). By the late 70s, I think Lois had an overcorrection into somewhat hamfisted social relevance stories that don’t look progressive by a modern lens. She’d become sexualized along with Supergirl to a point where you’d get voyeur shots of them changing clothes or showering. But by the very late 70s, the excesses subsided. Maggin and Pasko were rehabilitating the 60s stuff. And Lois and Clark gained a lot of psychological realism. They also had sex at least once. And the movie further helped reverent Lois.

I think she was basically a 3D character in the early 80s. Byrne and Wolfman’s reboot was kind of another overcorrection, purging the bad stuff from prior continuity but making her one note and not a great match for Clark.

Simonson, Ordway, Stern, and Jurgens made her a whole character again. Which she more or less continued to be until around Infinite Crisis or For Tomorrow. When we entered long stretches of Clarkless Superman comics. Which frequently omitted Lois or reduced her to Superman’s wife. For any faults you can find with Jurgens’ recent run, I think he rehabilitated Lois. (Lobdell’s Take felt like Byrne’s Lois with mid-40s creep Clark.)

And Lois is who I have the highest hopes for with Bendis. My fear is that he may traumatize her but I at least don’t doubt she will be sympathetic, tough, and multidimensional.

[Naked Bat]

I will never understand why some people don't like Lois Lane. And even though they have the right not tolike the character, they have to aknowledge her importance, not only in the mythos, but in the comic books mythology as a whole.

If the world's finest are really Superman, Batman and Robin, Superman is really about Clark Kent and Lois Lane and has always been. Even people who barely know comics know about Lois Lane. And while she's not always been written in a flattering way (silver age Lois...), she has all the qualities of a role model.

And I certainly don't think having her be Superman's wife erase her qualities or make her less of an accomplished woman. Only bad writers fail to make her awesome whil being Supes wife. Being his wife certainly doesn't mean she doesn't have her own spectacular feats. *

Recently, I really liked how Tom King wrote her relationship with her husband in Batman. You got the feeling than they really worked as a team.

[Last Son of Krypton]

The Awesome Con Action Comics #1000 Panel with Tom King, Scott Snyder, Paul Levitz, and Dan Jurgens: https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/04...cs-1000-panel/

[Jokerz79]

Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. I mean....I think there was a limit back then to what books showed. As you might recall, they were not even allowed to show a kiss between Superman and Lois back in the 1930's. The kiss had to happen off-panel and then they exclaimed that they kissed. So it was absolutely subtle but the context wasn't lost on me at all. Maybe because I've been in that situation (that could have easily happened to me or any woman I know a frat party in college even) and so I recognize when the woman feels threatened in the story. I've always felt it was a very important beat in Action Comics #1 and I think it's important to keep it at the forefront when we talk about the milestone of Action Comics 1000 even just to see how far we've come. Thanks again.

While I agree with you on in the Silver Age Clark played the coward to hide the fact he was Superman and that would obviously make Superman the more likely choice for a love interest over Clark for anyone. But there was also scenes like these in the Silver Age



Also at the beginning of that story she was trying to brake up Jor-El and Lara so she could date him stories like those in the Silver Age made it look like Lois was more interested in the Super and not the man. Sad fact was Lois was poorly written in the Silver Age IMO and gone was the ace reporter of the 40's and replaced by a woman mostly interested in getting Superman to date her even willing to use manipulation to do so. The Bronze Age started the transformation of Lois back to her reporter roots and the Post Crisis redefined Lois and Clark's relationship once Clark was no longer a façade to hide his identity as Superman.

[RepHope]

The Awesome Con Action Comics #1000 Panel with Tom King, Scott Snyder, Paul Levitz, and Dan Jurgens: https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/04...cs-1000-panel/

I liked King's little story for AC 1000 that he posted on Twitter. We'll see how Snyder does. It sucks Waid couldn't mend bridges in time to be a part of this, and I wish Morrison had decided to write a story.