Steve and Diana vs. Clark and Lois

[CTTT]

Clark and Lois have been a couple forever and yet writers have been able to write her in such as way that she's dynamic and interesting on her own and in her scenes with Clark they shine as a couple. I love Steve and Diana. They should definitely be an endgame couple. Why can't writers write the same way for Steve that they have for Lois? I think it's kind of unfair to be honest. Diana and Steve shine in their interactions together but Steve has trouble shining on his own.

[Agent Z]

The way I see it:

1) Clark and Lois have more media pushing them as a couple. The comics tried to write Steve out at least twice and he was absent for most of post crisis.

2) Steve and Diana's relationship beginnings has baggage that hasn't aged well. He's the first guy she falls for and thus becomes the love of her life. With Clark he's shown as being in love with or having relationships with other women before he meets Lois.

3) With LGBT representation becoming more visible, some writers and fans would prefer Diana with a woman instead.

[CTTT]

2) Oh that's right. So it's because of radio tv and movies that people like Lois and Clark. So outside media dictates what the comics storylines should be. I thought it was the other way around. Comics influence other media. Not because the comic writers happened to write a pairing that people like. So because Diana didn't sow her oats with anyone else and never had outside media push her and Steve until 2017, that's why she shouldn't be with Steve? Aquaman has Mera, Clark has Lois, Barry Allen has Iris, who by the way was written as their main love interests from the beginning. And you're telling me that Iris being Barry's love interest and Mera being Arthur's first and only is ok and Steve and Diana aren't?
3). She's never shown to have feelings for women so why should her bisexuality be shoehorned in? She doesn't need to be in a gay relationship to prove that she's a fierce fighting warrior capable of fighting alongside the male superheroes. She's proven that since the beginning in her solo adventures and with the Justice League. By the same argument, Lois should have been gay since she was trying to prove herself as an independent and capable reporter at the Daily Planet among the male dominant staff.

[Agent Z]

2) Oh that's right. So it's because of radio tv and movies that people like Lois and Clark. So outside media dictates what the comics storylines should be. I thought it was the other way around. Comics influence other media.

I didn’t say that. When I said media has been pushing Lois and Clark as a couple, I also meant the comics as well. I also never claimed the comic writers didn’t like the pairing or that people don’t like it either. Lois and Clark were married for 15 years in real time while Diana and Steve spent decades not being a couple.

Not because the comic writers happened to write a pairing that people like. So because Diana didn't sow her oats with anyone else and never had outside media push her and Steve until 2017, that's why she shouldn't be with Steve? Aquaman has Mera, Clark has Lois, Barry Allen has Iris, who by the way was written as their main love interests from the beginning. And you're telling me that Iris being Barry's love interest and Mera being Arthur's first and only is ok and Steve and Diana aren't?

Barry and Arthur have been written as having other love interests than Iris and Mera and those two were not written as being the first women they ever met.

3). She's never shown to have feelings for women so why should her bisexuality be shoehorned in?

Diana has been written as explicitly or covertly having an interest in women. The most recent example being Rucka’s run.

She doesn't need to be in a gay relationship to prove that she's a fierce fighting warrior capable of fighting alongside the male superheroes.

Who said anything about her needing to be in a same sex relationship to prove she’s a warrior? Her being attracted to women has nothing to do with her fighting skills.

[kjn]

Lots of small and contributing reasons, and Agent Z covered some of them. To that I'd add that Steve and Diana are constructed rather differently than Lois and Clark/Superman, and patriarchal patterns of thought.

One common factor in lots of popular fiction is the bland protagonist who is contrasted with more colourful characters around them. In the case of Lois and Clark, Clark started out as the bland protagonist, with Superman and Lois there to provide colour and conflict and tension in different ways. But Steve and Diana has a very different dynamic from a narrative standpoint, and it is more akin to Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson, with Diana as the dynamic, colourful, and larger-than-life character, and Steve as the bland sidekick. Another great such example is Pippi Longstocking, where Steve takes on the role of Tommy and Annika. I'm sure there are other good examples in literature.

Add to that the patriarchal patterns of thoughts, which certainly can allow for strong and capable women, but not when they are paired with men who aren't even stronger and more capable. Now, there are writers who are capable of breaking out of that pattern (like Marston or Rucka), but it requires effort and will get constant pushback or questioning from all sorts of people around it. This is a think a large reason why Pérez choose to age up Steve and remove him as a love interest—to me the handling of Steve and Etta was the worst creative decision that Pérez made during his tenure, and the consequences are still felt today.

(Heck, Chris Pine isn't immune to this either, as he described in an interview about WW84, where he longed for taking a more physically active role in filming the movie, and Patty Jenkins had to remind him that it's not a movie about Steve.)

To add to that, and what Agent Z mentioned, is that there has never been a good character arc for Steve until the movie. A good story centered around Steve could do a lot to overcome his basic blandness as a character, but it requires that Steve's character changes during the arc. To me, the one that comes to mind (apart from the movie solution of him becoming a hero, and it kills him) is to have Steve in the military when he meets Diana, and soon thereafter he quits because he realises that the military life is not for him and that he can do more good elsewhere.

[Tzigone]

[quot]eAdd to that the patriarchal patterns of thoughts, which certainly can allow for strong and capable women, but not when they are paired with men who aren't even stronger and more capable.[/quoTE]True, but I also sadly see the reverse - they can only be paired with men who are explicitly weak among men. They can never have equals though - they either dominate men or men who dominate them. It's actually patriarchal itself, really - sort of the Afrocentrism reaction to Eurocentrism. The men must be "feminized" -they can't just be weaker than the their women (which I'm fine with), but must not be regarded as impressive among the men with them, but instead explicitly less outstanding in traditionally masculine eras. I see this a lot with Scott Free and Steve Trevor - people who want to lessen them - in martial prowess, in size, in importance, etc. - in order to prop up the woman in the picture. I dislike it intensely. It's an insult to both the male character (he's being diminished) and the female one (indicates a lack of faith in her being awesome enough to be stand out with degrading characters around her).

To add to that, and what Agent Z mentioned, is that there has never been a good character arc for Steve until the movie.

Unfortunately true. I think he was usually quite good in the golden age, but there were no story arcs then. He was equally terrible to Lois in the silver-age with the marriage-tricking sort of stuff, then most disappeared or wasn't used for an age. Though I do think if you asked anyone on the street, they wouldn't be able to tell you a good Lois Lane arc, either. It's just that she's been around, and generally been portrayed fairly positively in numerous non-comic media. Strong, brave, intelligent-except-about-Superman's-secret. Some have issue with her liking Superman instead of Clark, though at least in older stuff, Superman was his real persona, so it made sense. But just being there and generally good and proactive helped a lot. Though some will still call her nothing but a damsel in distress. Wonder Woman herself hasn't had the exposure Superman has (in terms of actual stories told in other media, not toys and pajamas and the like), and so of course her supporting cast hasn't either. The lack of a consistent supporting cast is probably feedback loop there, too. Lack of outside exposure meant her cast wasn't cemented the same way, and lack of a recognizable/consistent cast probably lends towards less adaptation. People only know to expect Wonder Woman. They can't leap right in and know her city, her friends, her job, or even if she has a secret identity. It's more freedom for adaptation, but less easy access, IMO.

3) With LGBT representation becoming more visible, some writers and fans would prefer Diana with a woman instead.

I don't really like LGBT retconned onto characters - I don't think it works that well that way, because it often completely conflicts with prior characterization, actions, and thought bubbles. I feel the same about adding an ethnic minority aspect that's significant to the character at a late point. I and think creating new characters with the orientation/ethnicity/race works much better, makes a more coherent narrative, and a more consistent character. Diana is probably the best choice if you are going to tack it on to a previously existing character, though. And I understand a new character has a much more uphill battle to reach such levels of prominence.
I'm actually not very big on major retcons of any sense, which can make comic books frustrating at times, to say the least. But I love the good v. evil battles. Which is why the increasingly "turn a hero bad" or heroes working with villains or antihero aspects are so much a dower for me. The the first being the worst, and DC seems to want to do it every year now.

I'm also frankly very annoyed at what seems to me like a lot more women bisexual or homosexual than men in the mainstream titles, and them getting a lot more physical demonstrativeness in mainstream or most popular comics. Oftentimes seemingly to appeal the male readers more than anything else (to me, early Ivy and Harley aspects were very much this).

But I like Diana and Steve, and have for a long while, I would love to see them as a fantastic couple - her super-powered and him not - who regard each other as equals. Where she's a phenomenal superhero and he's an amazing non-super hero. I will say, too, that Lois and Clark have had some cringy stuff - even in the post-COIE era. Fortunately, they have enough good stuff to balance. At least in wider media and public perception, so they have fans that may have a good headcanon idea of them, even if canon doesn't always go that way. Frankly, almost all comic long-running comic couples have been terrible enough to each other in the past for me to have to headcanon away entire story arcs to still support them as couples. That's "drama" for you, because so many writers/editors just don't seem to know a better way, even though some exist.

[Agent Z]

According to GLAAD in 2018 gay men are far more common in film and t.v. than gay or bisexual women.

As for Diana, her being bisexual wouldn't contradict anything in her history at all.

[kjn]

True, but I also sadly see the reverse - they can only be paired with men who are explicitly weak among men. They can never have equals though - they either dominate men or men who dominate them. It's actually patriarchal itself, really - sort of the Afrocentrism reaction to Eurocentrism. The men must be "feminized" -they can't just be weaker than the their women (which I'm fine with), but must not be regarded as impressive among the men with them, but instead explicitly less outstanding in traditionally masculine eras.

Yes, that's another model, but it's much more common in comedic comics. Andy Capp is probably the most typical example, but there are doubtless more. But it's not common in superhero or action comics.

I see this a lot with Scott Free and Steve Trevor - people who want to lessen them - in martial prowess, in size, in importance, etc. - in order to prop up the woman in the picture. I dislike it intensely. It's an insult to both the male character (he's being diminished) and the female one (indicates a lack of faith in her being awesome enough to be stand out with degrading characters around her).

I'm not sure I agree with this analysis, however. The tendency among writers of Steve Trevor seems to have gone in two directions: one was the "grandfather" approach taken by Pérez, the other was the doubling down on military Steve taken by Rucka. I think neither approach is healthy for the character long-term.

Unfortunately true. I think he was usually quite good in the golden age, but there were no story arcs then. He was equally terrible to Lois in the silver-age with the marriage-tricking sort of stuff, then most disappeared or wasn't used for an age. Though I do think if you asked anyone on the street, they wouldn't be able to tell you a good Lois Lane arc, either.

Note that I'm using character arc not so much in the sense of a story, but specifically as a story which impacts and changes a character.

Here the fundamental difference between Lois and Steve comes to the fore, apart from the sheer quantity of Lois being present in the DCU: Lois is written as a character with agency of her own from the beginning, to create tension between the Superman and Clark personas. Steve, on the other hand, is there simply to observe Diana.

Thus, Lois's character is a lot more integral to the story of Superman, and she is also a more interesting character in and of herself. If we go back to the movie, what they did with Steve was two things: one was that they gave him a real personality (and a lot of that was thanks to Chris Pine), the other was that they gave him a real character arc that was sort of the inverse of Diana's.

I don't really like LGBT retconned onto characters - I don't think it works that well that way, because it often completely conflicts with prior characterization, actions, and thought bubbles. I feel the same about adding an ethnic minority aspect that's significant to the character at a late point. I and think creating new characters with the orientation/ethnicity/race works much better, makes a more coherent narrative, and a more consistent character. Diana is probably the best choice if you are going to tack it on to a previously existing character, though. And I understand a new character has a much more uphill battle to reach such levels of prominence.

I might have a higher tolerance for that type of character work than you do in general, but it doesn't really matter here in the specific case of Diana. Because if there is one superhero character that was built to embrace LGBT issues from the beginning, it was her. Diana simply makes sense as a bi- or pansexual character.

[Largo161]

My theory: Male comic book writers enjoy writing Lois because no matter what she'll always be subordinate to Supes. They don't like writing men who are subordinate to women--thus you have Steve being discarded or placed on the back burner for long stretches.

[KangMiRae]

One common factor in lots of popular fiction is the bland protagonist who is contrasted with more colourful characters around them. In the case of Lois and Clark, Clark started out as the bland protagonist, with Superman and Lois there to provide colour and conflict and tension in different ways. But Steve and Diana has a very different dynamic from a narrative standpoint, and it is more akin to Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson, with Diana as the dynamic, colourful, and larger-than-life character, and Steve as the bland sidekick. Another great such example is Pippi Longstocking, where Steve takes on the role of Tommy and Annika. I'm sure there are other good examples in literature.

This is such a great point that it really shows the difference in Lois and Steve's characters from their creation. She was made to flair up Clark, while Steve was made as the bland one. It feels like no writers have been able to dig him our of this character rut since then.

Personally I think it's because they try too hard to keep the military aspect of his character around at all times. I think he should have a different career, but maybe that's because I'm not creative enough tot come up with something interesting for a bland, typical military soldier like Steve.

[kjn]

Personally I think it's because they try too hard to keep the military aspect of his character around at all times. I think he should have a different career, but maybe that's because I'm not creative enough tot come up with something interesting for a bland, typical military soldier like Steve.

Which is when I trot out Harald Edelstam again.

[The I.A.D.C.]

2) Oh that's right. So it's because of radio tv and movies that people like Lois and Clark. So outside media dictates what the comics storylines should be. I thought it was the other way around. Comics influence other media.

While you would think that would be the way it worked, it's actually been the OPPOSITE going back as far as the Adam West "Batman" TV show in the '60s. Once that became a hit with public, it didn't take DC long to make the comic book Batman into a reflection of the TV version. During the first season of the Lynda Carter WW TV show, the WW comic book changed back to a WWII setting that mirrored what viewers were getting on TV complete with a brunette Steve Trevor and General Blankenship (not Darnell like the original Marston comics.) Anytime a particular movie or TV version of a character becomes popular, the comics will integrate aspects of that hoping that fans of those movies and shows will start reading the comic book. Look at Rebirth "Supergirl" and "Green Arrow." WW's current costume is pretty much what Gal Gadot wears in the movie.

The whole reason we got the classic "Death of Superman" story back in the '90s was because ABC was developing the "Lois & Clark" TV show and wanted DC to wait and have L&C get married in the comics at the same time they did in the series...if it ever got that far (which it did in it's final season.) That pissed of the Superman writers who'd been building to this big wedding that they finally just said, "Let's just kill him." So, outside media has always influenced, if not downright dictated, the direction of the comic books.

[Sacred Knight]

To add to this Lois on her own is just simply a far, far, far more popular character. Always has been. Not without ups and downs of her own but I mean, once upon a time she had her own long-lasting solo monthly. That's how popular she was at one time. And she still gets mini's from time to time today. Steve has nothing to his resume even close to that.

[brettc1]

2) Oh that's right. So it's because of radio tv and movies that people like Lois and Clark. So outside media dictates what the comics storylines should be. I thought it was the other way around. Comics influence other media. Not because the comic writers happened to write a pairing that people like. So because Diana didn't sow her oats with anyone else and never had outside media push her and Steve until 2017, that's why she shouldn't be with Steve? Aquaman has Mera, Clark has Lois, Barry Allen has Iris, who by the way was written as their main love interests from the beginning. And you're telling me that Iris being Barry's love interest and Mera being Arthur's first and only is ok and Steve and Diana aren't?
3). She's never shown to have feelings for women so why should her bisexuality be shoehorned in? She doesn't need to be in a gay relationship to prove that she's a fierce fighting warrior capable of fighting alongside the male superheroes. She's proven that since the beginning in her solo adventures and with the Justice League. By the same argument, Lois should have been gay since she was trying to prove herself as an independent and capable reporter at the Daily Planet among the male dominant staff.

Outside media DOES influence the comics.

Just look at how the appearance of heroes has changed to match their movie images. In Wonder Woman’s case, the movie armour came first and the comics followed.

It happens with the way characters are written as well. Compare Loki in 1983 to the way he’s written now. Huddleston redefined the narrative of who Loki is as a character.

As much as I love Steve, odds are we wouldn’t even have him in the book at all had Chris Pine not really clicked with Gsl in the movie.

[Celgress]

The way I see it:

1) Clark and Lois have more media pushing them as a couple. The comics tried to write Steve out at least twice and he was absent for most of post crisis.

2) Steve and Diana's relationship beginnings has baggage that hasn't aged well. He's the first guy she falls for and thus becomes the love of her life. With Clark he's shown as being in love with or having relationships with other women before he meets Lois.

3) With LGBT representation becoming more visible, some writers and fans would prefer Diana with a woman instead.

My thoughts as well.

I'd honestly prefer Diana with Bruce or Clark or maybe a new female love interest because Steve is, IMO, such a boring non-entity. Sorry but this is how I feel. Unlike Lois or Selina, I would shed no tears if Steve suddenly disappeared one day.