Possible Solution to the SMWW / Clois Division?

[kjn]

There are some other factors to consider. The first is that my impression is that Wonder Woman fans as a group never accepted the idea. Together with Brian Azzarello's run, the New 52 Wonder Woman became perceived as barely being about Wonder Woman at all, neither in characterisation nor in the position she received in the stories.

(Speaking very broadly here; it's not hard to find New 52 Wonder Woman fans or S/WW shippers here, but the general trend is clear.)

Another factor is storyteling dynamics: one of the keys for many good Superman stories is his dual identity as Clark Kent and Superman. Lois Lane was one of the most effective ways that this tension could play out. With Wonder Woman, the Clark Kent persona gets entirely subsumed under Superman. Ie, for some fans, Wonder Woman made Superman a less interesting characters.

[Last Son of Krypton]

I think in regards to Superman , it was certainly one of the major factors why the New 52 version failed to gain traction. It wasn't the primary reason it failed ultimately ( poor editorial stewardship was the primary reason IMO) but it created division within the fandom that an essentially new version of the character didn't need at that point. I still say it was stupid to put Superman back into a long term romantic relationship after making such a big deal to get back to a single Superman after 20 years of being exclusive to Lois. Not that i wanted to see Superman as a swinging bachelor or anything, but i think it would have benefited the character to focus on adventure and scifi and defining who this "new" guy was on his own without being in a romantic relationship with anyone for a few years. I mean, they had already erased most of his history and changed his costume which were both divisive moves anyway. They didn't need to add shipper bait and shipper wars to the mix either ( remember when DC for valentines 2012 or 2013 did the whole " team Lois" vs. Team Diana" stuff on their social media to fuel that crap? Ugh.)


As i've always said it was never the idea of exploring a Superman and Wonder Woman romance that I found distasteful. It was how it was treated and executed by DC brass in order to intentionally create " buzz" and " controversy" and to move merchandise and divide Superman fandom along lines at a time where the character was starting over and struggling a bit. The only one who seemed to care about doing right by the concept was Charles Soule when he was writing that book, and I enjoyed that book on its own terms . Everything surrounding that though was badly thought out and planned and after Soule left it was clear it was all about merchandising and buzz and not actually doing that relationship any justice.

Soule told to a fan that he left the book because editorial wanted to change the direction of the series. So, I assume that Tomasi's ooc writing for the sake of drama was something that would've been forced on Soule too if he stayed on the book for other months.
I don't think there wasn't a real interest to explore the romance. Diggle wanted to explore it and use Azzarello's gods too but he left AC prematurely because DC din't let him cut Superman's arm or something. As I keep saying the New52 was a really chaotic era, and at the DC barely know what they were doing as plans and creative teams changed every 6 months or less in Superman case.

[Miles To Go]

Another factor is storyteling dynamics: one of the keys for many good Superman stories is his dual identity as Clark Kent and Superman. Lois Lane was one of the most effective ways that this tension could play out. With Wonder Woman, the Clark Kent persona gets entirely subsumed under Superman. Ie, for some fans, Wonder Woman made Superman a less interesting characters.

This.

A lot of S/WW fans often put down Clark's need for a human identity or occupation, and thus barely has time for the relationships that come with it, insisting that their god-like stature and around the clock superheroics is enough, but stories like that become stale to read. Diana has also pretty much outgrown her own need for a secret ID over the decades, so much so that trying to revert back to that can really stick out.

It's a large part of what Tomasi uses to fuel her primary motivation for dumping Clark in "Death of Superman", that she has a hard time understanding Clark's need to ground himself in a protected state for the sake of his loved ones and his own attempts to be part of a socially functional world, to be part of what he strives to protect and not position himself above it. He sees it as a part of who he needs to be, she only sees it as a masquerade.

[kjn]

That was a problem of the new52 as a whole not of the romance itself. There wasn't collaboration and communication between writers during that era because Lee and DiDio thought that writers could handle themselves without editorial planning, etc... what a mess.

I can see ways to do manage such a thing, but it would require good writers who were given the wherewithal to decide on their stories and the means for effective collaboration when the need arises. It would also require a lot of prior planning, not so much in order to decide on the specific stories, but in making the writers aware of what everyone else around were intending to do, and so they trusted each other.

There is even a name for that style of management and leadership in the military: Auftragstaktik (even if that seems to be a slight misnomer).

I believe the shared world anthology series Thieves' World managed something similar for several years. However, they had the advantage that most of the authors were A-list within fantasy and science fiction, their publishing tempo was slower, and that many of the people involved knew and corresponded with each other already.

[Armor of God]

Not only that but writers were deprived from using certain storytelling devices. For instance Azz wanted nothing to do with the romance and had his own plans tossed aside by editorial.

[Last Son of Krypton]

I can see ways to do manage such a thing, but it would require good writers who were given the wherewithal to decide on their stories and the means for effective collaboration when the need arises. It would also require a lot of prior planning, not so much in order to decide on the specific stories, but in making the writers aware of what everyone else around were intending to do, and so they trusted each other.

There is even a name for that style of management and leadership in the military: Auftragstaktik (even if that seems to be a slight misnomer).

I believe the shared world anthology series Thieves' World managed something similar for several years. However, they had the advantage that most of the authors were A-list within fantasy and science fiction, their publishing tempo was slower, and that many of the people involved knew and corresponded with each other already.

Yeah, it could absolutely work with a better (long term) planning and collaboration between writers.
Writers should sit around the same table and discuss together what to do with the characters.

Look at the new52 Wonder Woman... because of the lack of collaboration, she was written as 2 different characters by Azzarello and Johns. It wasn't just the characterization but her status-quo too, Azzarello's Diana was living in London while Johns' Diana spent her time in Washington but doesn't really have a life outside of the watchtower. This kind of "creative freedom" is not the right way to handle characters that appear in multiple books.

[kjn]

It's a large part of what Tomasi uses to fuel her primary motivation for dumping Clark in "Death of Superman", that she has a hard time understanding Clark's need to ground himself in a protected state for the sake of his loved ones and his own attempts to be part of a socially functional world, to be part of what he strives to protect and not position himself above it. He sees it as a part of who he needs to be, she only sees it as a masquerade.

That some writers think Diana would have trouble understanding Superman's need for being Clark Kent is just another example of too many writers not grokking her character. That Diana has no need for being Diana Prince does not imply she can't see Superman's need for being Clark Kent.

On the contrary, I'd say she breaks off because she realises that around her, Clark Kent can only be Superman. (Judd Winick makes that point in The Green Arrow and Black Canary wedding special.)

[ssupes]

That some writers think Diana would have trouble understanding Superman's need for being Clark Kent is just another example of too many writers not grokking her character. That Diana has no need for being Diana Prince does not imply she can't see Superman's need for being Clark Kent.

On the contrary, I'd say she breaks off because she realises that around her, Clark Kent can only be Superman. (Judd Winick makes that point in The Green Arrow and Black Canary wedding special.)

Why would she break it off if superman can only be superman? It's not like Diana can turn off being wonder woman either. I agree with the first part though and one of the reasons I have issues with tomasi's run.

[ssupes]

Yeah, it could absolutely work with a better (long term) planning and collaboration between writers.
Writers should sit around the same table and discuss together what to do with the characters.

Look at the new52 Wonder Woman... because of the lack of collaboration, she was written as 2 different characters by Azzarello and Johns. It wasn't just the characterization but her status-quo too, Azzarello's Diana was living in London while Johns' Diana spent her time in Washington but doesn't really have a life outside of the watchtower. This kind of "creative freedom" is not the right way to handle characters that appear in multiple books.

This is what everyone hoped the new 52 would be but instead it turned into a mess that just got worse when convergence happened.

[kjn]

Why would she break it off if superman can only be superman? It's not like Diana can turn off being wonder woman either. I agree with the first part though and one of the reasons I have issues with tomasi's run.

Because she realises (or knows) that the Clark Kent persona is necessary for Superman's mental health, and that when he is around her, he can't be Clark Kent.

[rpmaluki]

I don't think it's about his mental health per se. Kal-El exists as both Clark Kent AND Superman. That's who he is. You cannot truly separate the one from the other and I find that I enjoy the character more when I see both sides as opposed to only seeing him just as Superman.

Plus because of his abilities, Superman basically never "switches off" and if all he ever was was just Superman 24/7 I would question if he ever took a break just for himself. It's not like he can simply walk down the street in his suit without causing people around him to think something bad was happening and likely cause undue panic. It would come across as though he always on the job (though he is) and if a regular person cannot sustain that type of existence without breaking and must rest every now and then, as a reader I would expect that Superman needs such a break for himself lest he "break" but he can't do that in Superman mode hence the necessity of Clark Kent. And because he is Superman, it's like we aren't allowed to see that side of the character needing a moment to himself. I mean look at the reception for the DCEU version or even Bendis and the small little scenes peppering his run with his family gone. It seems people are uncomfortable with Superman not acting like Superman all the time.

With that said, like I said at the beginning, I don't see Clark as a device to keep Superman sane or normal. He is Clark and he can't simply do away with that part of himself any more than he can do away with being Superman. Seeing both personas makes him a richer character.

[Sacred Knight]

All that is absolutely true. When played like it should, frankly it shouldn't matter whom Clark decides to pursue a relationship with. Not being able to "be Clark" would be completely irrelevant if they played it as it is and that there is no such thing as him not being able to be one or the other. BUt, unfortunately, DC in more recent years has loved to play up the idea that Clark needs an anchor. That he needs "grounding", a term I absolutely loathe. They do this to give extra influence to Lois's role in life (which is cheap and actually under-estimating the nearly century appeal of the Lois Lane character as it suggests she ever needed a bigger influence than she always was, right alongside diminishing Superman's inherent love for his adopted home and its people). And without that grounding he suddenly wil lose a side of himself that simply cannot be lost because it is part of who he is and always was to his core.

[rpmaluki]

I can't say I feel the same as you do about Lois and her role in Clark's life. For me, I can never separate the two whether they are in a relationship or not. Their lives are intrinsically woven together and have been since the beginning. It's how I see them, call me old fashioned. Someone who doesn't see that is likely going to be put off by the idea that Lois matters so much to Superman as a character within the story well as a (positive) device for the writers to move the plot forward. I can agree about some writers taking it too far in certain stories (Injustice anyone?) but I find it just as jarring when the connection is nigh severed as I have read in some comics, mainly N52.

Obviously she isn't the only person that's important to Superman's mythos but I'll stick to Lois for the purpose of the discussion. Clark being in other relationships outside of Lois is nothing new but his relationship with Lois, I feel must be handled carefully under those circumstances and recently, N52 failed miserably in this regard. She isn't just any character where he's concerned. I don't know the politics surrounding N52 Superman but his relationships with both Diana and Lois seem to be a catalyst for the major shift in direction where he's concerned, there seems to be be more cons than pros where both relationships are concerned, hence it was done away with the skill of a child with a butter knife. There is an obviously apparent sense of deterioration towards the end, narratively and editorially, which influenced which first is likely the same argument about the chicken and the egg. We'll never really know.

I already said before why I don't want to see WW with Superman but another reason that was mentioned before and expounded on by others is that they are characters belonging in their own separate IP's and maintaining a long term relationship isn't sustainable in long term. I have already seen how that impacts (almost too negatively) their own supporting cast. If pursuing a vastly different direction is a must, the only viable option for me is an elseworld mini. I don't see how an ongoing book is sustainable, jmo. A self contained and very finite story, that has no impact on the main character's main line.

[Sacred Knight]

I don't separate the two either. I definitely consider the lack of strong dynamic period between the two characters in the New 52 a pretty big failure. They have to have a connection and a relationship of some kind that is meaningful. I just don't believe it always has to be forever on them in wedded bless (friends/rivals/mutual attraction works just as well and often I'd argue better), and I've always have rejected the notion that she is the key that makes Clark Kent Clark Kent and keeps him Clark Kent. But yes they absolutely must have a connection of some kind regardless. Admittedly the only reason I didn't complain about it more in the New 52 was because I was busy enjoying other aspects of Superman's relaunch. So I was more open to giving it time to develop, which by the time they really started trying with Truth (which in of itself was a controversial decision for Lois but I think the very concept would have worked better had the execution of the overall story been better), they had decided to roll back to the previous continuity anyway. But that's not the way things worked out so it was a fail nonetheless.

As far as Diana, the differing IPs is more than understandable. Its a challenge, and its the argument I respect the most because its really something that could have been a legit issue. Its not imagined or requires false/revised history to construct the argument like popularity/prior success arguments. At the time it was done they were under the same editorial department, but that's not something that would have, and indeed didn't last forever (even though the change happened during Rebirth anyway so it was moot) I myself, as much a fan of it I was in the New 52 believe that, had they not rebooted their reboot and kept going with that continuity, those IP concerns probably would have became more and more of an issue as time went on, as editors/creative teams do change and you'd get pitches that were believed in that would require doing their own things again. The places to do it are really alternate tales or as discussed before a smaller separate line which could, theoretically, work in a different manner than the larger, main line. But again I have lots more reasons than just that in regards to having an appeal to see something like that take place.

[Last Son of Krypton]

At the time it was done they were under the same editorial department, but that's not something that would have, and indeed didn't last forever

SM and WW weren't under the same editorial for the bulk of the time they were a couple: WW was edited by Matt Idelson for 40 issues, while SM/AC ended up under Berganza after the romance started. Idelson stopped working for DC after the move in California and the WW book was edited temporarily by Berganza (WW #41/50) during the time DC was starting dismantle the relationship.