Would a Lois and Clark romance work if u take out the Superman equation? Spoiler

[Wakeneuron]

If Clark wasn't Superman and was just someone from a rural farming town would he and Lois have a succesful marriage and relationship since Lois is kind of the direct opposite of Clark, a city girl, stern, very opinionated and raised in a military family.

I think that a Superman-less Clark might date Lois and even get married but the marriage would not last long.

Maybe this is the angle that Bendis is taking now?

[Tzigone]

I can't agree. They're both crusaders for justice and saving people. She uses journalism, while he uses journalism plus more overt means. Plus they are both something of adventurers. And he's a city boy at heart to me - he grew up in a small town, but found his place, where he fit, in a big city. Of course, versions vary there, but that's one of those that I was exposed to earlier and one that I like.

[Yoda]

If Clark wasn't Superman and was just someone from a rural farming town would he and Lois have a succesful marriage and relationship since Lois is kind of the direct opposite of Clark, a city girl, stern, very opinionated and raised in a military family.

I think that a Superman-less Clark might date Lois and even get married but the marriage would not last long.

Maybe this is the angle that Bendis is taking now?

If he was the same person, just without the powers of course it would work. He’d be a better version of Clark actually since he could be himself all the time around other people and wouldn’t have to hold back to keep a low profile. They both pursue the same things, he was attracted to her because of that not because she’s into Superman.

And Lois doesn’t love him because he’s got superpowers. That’s some sexist bs from like 50 years ago. She loves him because he’s of who he is as a person, not his character as Superman. And he definitely loves her for exactly who she is. I don’t understand why you think it’s fail without Superman element.

Bendis isn’t breaking them up either. Why does this persist? Theirs relationship is strong, it’s just not the traditional set up. Rucka’s portrayal of it in today’s Lois Lane #1 was fantastic.

[rpmaluki]

Something certainly draws Lois to Clark before she finds out he's Super. If everything is the same except the tights and the Kryptonian powers that come with it, but he's still the journalist that pursues truth and justice, I say they would still end up where they are. Happily married, with vastly different personalities but driven by the same ideals.

[rpmaluki]

If he was the same person, just without the powers of course it would work. He’d be a better version of Clark actually since he could be himself all the time around other people and wouldn’t have to hold back to keep a low profile. They both pursue the same things, he was attracted to her because of that not because she’s into Superman.

And Lois doesn’t love him because he’s got superpowers. That’s some sexist bs from like 50 years ago. She loves him because he’s of who he is as a person, not his character as Superman. And he definitely loves her for exactly who she is. I don’t understand why you think it’s fail without Superman element.

Bendis isn’t breaking them up either. Why does this persist? Theirs relationship is strong, it’s just not the traditional set up. Rucka’s portrayal of it in today’s Lois Lane #1 was fantastic.

I loved this, along with her panels with Perry. I agree about the Bendis part as well.

[Tzigone]

Bendis isn’t breaking them up either. Why does this persist? Theirs relationship is strong, it’s just not the traditional set up. Rucka’s portrayal of it in today’s Lois Lane #1 was fantastic.

Because they've lived separately. He had the public kiss and the photographs of the kiss between Lois and Superman, which would logically at least make others think the marriage is in trouble and they'd have to react to that. He took the kid away for a while (bye bye happy family stories) and aged him up (a kid is often an excuse for a reason a couple can't be broken up in fiction that kids might read, though far less so now than it was a long while ago), and because I don't like how he writes Lois (unilaterally changing mind on Jon with Jor-El, leaving Jon with psycho Jor-El, not telling Clark she was back on earth, telling Sam secret without us seeing first Clark was okay with it), and think those are methods that would be used to distance the couple, since it's her being a bad partner, IMO. Since some of us don't read interviews, don't seek out be spoiled for future, or just evaluate based on comic alone, we just see ominous indications. Looks like (with the public kiss), they either publicly break up (which can lead to real distance), Clark looks like a fool & Lois like a cheater to the public, or we get a quick-and-maybe-cheaty-wipeaway excuse for a situation that could have been avoided had they used their brains (even if she just kept the wig on, it would have helped). Maybe that won't happen, but since I haven't liked most of what Bendis has done, I'm not feeling inclined to be optimistic. Better to be pessimistic and pleasantly surprised than optimistic and disappointed when dealing with a writer you don't care for, IMO.

[sunofdarkchild]

A big part of their relationship from Byrne onward was figuring out whether Lois could love Clark for who he is and not just the superhero who swept her off her feet. It's why he didn't tell her the truth until after they were engaged in the early 90s. She decided to marry him when she thought he was a normal guy with no powers.

[Nelliebly]

This is a weird question.

Of course their relationship would work. Lois Lane loves Clark Kent. When he is true to himself and being the person he really is, her attraction to him is intense with or without the Superman persona and this has always been true. She fell in love with Clark. The fact that Clark is Superman works distinctly because she has a relationship with both Clark and Superman and so it’s a lifesaver for her that they are one and the same. Fandom and media often (unfairly) asks her to choose between them and that’s silly and unfair because Clark himself is unable to cut one side of himself off so why would we ask Lois to do what he cannot. But, even outside of that, she loves Clark Kent for who he is and would be with him and love him if Superman never existed.

But see, this is a larger question than just their marriage. If Clark Kent isn’t Superman than the duality of the myth is completely changed and you are telling a totally different story. If you operate under the belief (as I do) that both sides of the identity are equal in importance and equally “real” than splitting one side off from him is akin to cutting him in half. He’s not whole. This is true if he tried to be Superman all the time and it’s true if he just tried to be Clark.

The dual identity is the foundation of Superman and Lois Lane and her love is where Clark and Superman meet in the middle. He loves her as Superman. He loves her as Clark. He sees different sides of her when he’s in each persona just as she sees different sides of him. She often shows vulnerability to Superman before she reveals it to Clark. He shows strength to her as Superman before he reveals that strength to her as Clark. Their love meets in the middle. Smallville did an excellent job of exploring this—-probably the best job any media has ever done. Their takeaway was that Clark himself can’t be just one side of himself and be whole and their love was rooted in his whole, true self because that’s where she can be her truest self too.

Super interesting stuff imo.

[stargazer01]

Of course it could work because both Clark and Lois share similar ideals in life. I always felt that Lois being the big city woman that she is, could fall for small town Clark Kent because of who he is inside. His virtues and strong morals as a man could attract even the most cynical person. Also, opposites attract. The Superman thing just makes things more exciting and complicated, but regular life is an adventure in itself really.

[Jon Clark]

I'm not as sure as a lot of you.

In this scenario Lois is the same person and would obviously fall in love with the Clark as he is now regardless of powers. But without Superman is Clark still the same Clark?

If Clark was just a regular kid in Smallville who didn't have to hide large parts of who he was, does he still develop the same personality.

No rocketship in the barn moment to make him question who he is. No Ghost Dad telling him "Lead them into the light, Kal-El". No spiel from Jonathan about "sent here for reason". No Legion of Superheroes filling his head with the idea he will inspire people a millenia in the future, He's just another kid from Smallville with the same destiny as Pete Ross or Lana Lang.

No guilt over his football wins (Byrne) or needing to hide his athletic prowess (most others) so Clark could become an athlete rather than a reporter. He no longer sees journalism as a place where he is on an even playing field, While he moght still possess the same sense of justice, he'd no longer be driven to be personally involved or need to get a job where he is able to find out where his "powers" can make a difference. In short he isn't necessarily a crusading reporter in outlook or profession.

[Vordan]

Sure, if we assume powerless Clark is the exact same guy as the “canon” Clark. It’s Clark’s morals and personality that ultimately win Lois over, not his powers.

I'm not as sure as a lot of you.

In this scenario Lois is the same person and would obviously fall in love with the Clark as he is now regardless of powers. But without Superman is Clark still the same Clark?

If Clark was just a regular kid in Smallville who didn't have to hide large parts of who he was, does he still develop the same personality.

No rocketship in the barn moment to make him question who he is. No Ghost Dad telling him "Lead them into the light, Kal-El". No spiel from Jonathan about "sent here for reason". No Legion of Superheroes filling his head with the idea he will inspire people a millenia in the future, He's just another kid from Smallville with the same destiny as Pete Ross or Lana Lang.

No guilt over his football wins (Byrne) or needing to hide his athletic prowess (most others) so Clark could become an athlete rather than a reporter. He no longer sees journalism as a place where he is on an even playing field, While he moght still possess the same sense of justice, he'd no longer be driven to be personally involved or need to get a job where he is able to find out where his "powers" can make a difference. In short he isn't necessarily a crusading reporter in outlook or profession.

However this is a good point. Would a powerless Clark feel the same desire/duty to help as the one we know? Would be an interesting Elseworld for sure. My answer is that it depends on which version of Clark we look to. The Johns/Morrison nerd/loner would still pretty much be the same guy I feel as the Superman we know. But the Byrne guy probably wouldn’t, however I do think Ma and Pa Kent would still teach Clark he has a duty to help how he can. Also is powerless Clark still Kryptonian? Because then he would still have the Fortress of Solitude with all of its Kryptonian tech, so I feel that he would still be in a position to help.

[The World]

If you get rid of Superman you fundamentally change the entire make up of the characters existence. He probably would be as well known as Pep Morgan and be forgotten by all but biggest of comic history buffs. Lois, Clark, and everyone else would have had a very short lived run not making it to even being in a relationship much less getting married.

[stargazer01]

If you get rid of Superman you fundamentally change the entire make up of the characters existence. He probably would be as well known as Pep Morgan and be forgotten by all but biggest of comic history buffs. Lois, Clark, and everyone else would have had a very short lived run not making it to even being in a relationship much less getting married.

Exactly. Lois and Superman work because both want justice in the world, but without the Superman aspect, why does Clark Kent want to go to Metropolis to be a reporter? It's such a fundamental change. Maybe he still wants that, and he and Lois meet and fall in love. She is not going to change who she is. He needs to accept her life.

[rpmaluki]

Are you taking away his powers but leaving his character in tact (the foundation laid by the Kents and his own aspirations to make a difference) or are you taking both away? The former, wouldn't change anything because Lois and Clark would still be where they are today minus the Kryptonian/Superman side but the latter, Clark may as well be Tom the footballer or Joe the mechanic because he'd never cross paths with Lois Lane.

[Jon Clark]

Are you taking away his powers but leaving his character in tact (the foundation laid by the Kents and his own aspirations to make a difference) or are you taking both away? The former, wouldn't change anything because Lois and Clark would still be where they are today minus the Kryptonian/Superman side but the latter, Clark may as well be Tom the footballer or Joe the mechanic because he'd never cross paths with Lois Lane.

My point is that the two are linked. His personality is shaped by his experiences and if he wasn't Superman then those experiences are different- ergo Clark is different.