Did Jerry Siegel think Superman and Lois should Marry?

[manwhohaseverything]

I think giving consideration to comments made in the 70’s is pointless. That’s a different world all together. The most important thing to me as a reader is that characters reflect our culture as it is now. Evolution is the most important thing to me. A single Superman that hid behind glasses and bumbled around while romancing Lois isn’t remotely appealing to me. The characters are married so now progressing forward is the most important thing. Keep them moving. More kids. Maybe changing cities. They just can’t remain static.
The comics as they are now probably have more depth than ever before. Superman is being allowed to change.

Dude, you do know superman has always changed right? I mean, the golden age guy was straight up vigilante who broke law. Threw guys through walls and stuff. Not a boyscout to say the least.silverage guy was wierd genius who built the fortress of solitude himself. Postcrisis guy was the lovable farmboy boyscout.

[SiegePerilous02]

The spider marriage. Conway said no here and became a main contributor to that one. I like the idea of Peter growing up and not being some punchline, and doing those sort of things... but when he's more prepared for growth than Superman that's weird to me.

It's kinda funny how all the creators said no... I don't think they wanted to condone a marriage during a period where they were completely unable to make it work as a regular thing. But by no means was Siegel strict on that. He was alive long enough to nod the engagement era and Swan was thankfully around to contribute to the wedding special despite his own sentiments.

I think Peter as a character has always been prepared for growth more than Superman and most DC characters. When we were introduced to him, he was 15 years old before his arc progressed to him being in college fairly quickly. I think he actually made it to college before Dick Grayson, and that kid had a good two decades or so on him lol. It was pretty quickly established that this was a story of a young man growing into an adult and about the lessons he learned and hardships along the way. After a certain point, marriage or commitment to a partner is more baked into his story than Superman's, since Clark has been largely static since 1938, and most changes come about due to reboots or changing versions. Superman is more of a (to a point) static but layered archetypical character, while Spider-Man is (to a point) the more dynamic soap opera lead. Especially as Peter is the same character we knew since Amazing Fantasy #15, while Clark and Lois are all over the map depending on DC's mood any given week.

This is why I think OMD is a bigger disaster than Flashpoint for the respective marriages. I think more was lost with the former than the latter. Both heroes regressed to an extent, but with Clark at least it was a no BS new version who regained some of the traits he lost, whereas Peter was just made into a manchild loser.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think Peter as a character has always been prepared for growth more than Superman and most DC characters. When we were introduced to him, he was 15 years old before his arc progressed to him being in college fairly quickly. I think he actually made it to college before Dick Grayson, and that kid had a good two decades or so on him lol. It was pretty quickly established that this was a story of a young man growing into an adult and about the lessons he learned and hardships along the way. After a certain point, marriage or commitment to a partner is more baked into his story than Superman's, since Clark has been largely static since 1938, and most changes come about due to reboots or changing versions. Superman is more of a (to a point) static but layered archetypical character, while Spider-Man is (to a point) the more dynamic soap opera lead. Especially as Peter is the same character we knew since Amazing Fantasy #15, while Clark and Lois are all over the map depending on DC's mood any given week.

This is why I think OMD is a bigger disaster than Flashpoint for the respective marriages. I think more was lost with the former than the latter. Both heroes regressed to an extent, but with Clark at least it was a no BS new version who regained some of the traits he lost, whereas Peter was just made into a manchild loser.

I think superboy can function like peter. Heck! American alien pulled it of with postcrisis guy. So, it's possible to do it.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think superboy can function like peter. Heck! American alien pulled it of with postcrisis guy. So, it's possible to do it.

It's definitely possible in a hypothetical version of Superman. At least for me though, in a direct comparison between the two, Peter's story seems more coherent up to a point because there has only ever been one mainstream version of him and MJ, whereas we've had like 3-4 versions of Clark and Lois in the mainstream comics. The originals who went on to Earth-2 when they were married, and the Earth-1 versions who had their stories wrapped up by Alan Moore, and the post-Crisis versions who actually had the mainstream marriage. But didn't have a lot of the history of their prior versions, and none of them really went through character arcs the way Spider-Man did.

Even with Superboy, the original Superboy stories were pretty static themselves and often reverted to status quo by the end of things. We also knew where the direction was going to inevtably go with those because the adventures of adult Superman were being told concurrently.

[Stick Figure]

Dude, you do know superman has always changed right? I mean, the golden age guy was straight up vigilante who broke law. Threw guys through walls and stuff. Not a boyscout to say the least.silverage guy was wierd genius who built the fortress of solitude himself. Postcrisis guy was the lovable farmboy boyscout.

I get all that but I’m a new reader who’s only casually familiar with the character. I’m here because I follow Bendis. I don’t know anything Superman did in the 40’s. From what I know , he’s been a reporter, had a silly secret identity, and finally married Lois iat some point. I grew up not liking the character because he felt so “old school”. All my friends were the same. DC had Batman and that was their only good character. That’s absolutely wrong but until Man of Steel, I would’ve never looked at Superman comics. Now Bendis has me reading them.

I think to casual fans, like myself, Superman’s never had much change. That’s wrong but that’s the perception for many.

[manwhohaseverything]

I get all that but I’m a new reader who’s only casually familiar with the character. I’m here because I follow Bendis. I don’t know anything Superman did in the 40’s. From what I know , he’s been a reporter, had a silly secret identity, and finally married Lois iat some point. I grew up not liking the character because he felt so “old school”. All my friends were the same. DC had Batman and that was their only good character. That’s absolutely wrong but until Man of Steel, I would’ve never looked at Superman comics. Now Bendis has me reading them.

I think to casual fans, like myself, Superman’s never had much change. That’s wrong but that’s the perception for many.

That's pretty surface level knowledge. Have you watched tintin? Know characters like flash Gordon, phantom.. Etc? Superman is basically part of that gang. That was pre superhero. That's not just old school but wayyyy old school in a cool way. Have you seen something like charlie chapplin or harold lloyd?the silly secret id is meant to be part of the comedy.it might not work anymore. the gag i mean. But, superman acknowledged the 4th wall before deadpool or shehulk ever started breaking it . Regardless, there are three main transformation of superman. They aren't the same. Fun fact, superman didn't want to be publicly seen. He used clark kent id to suppress reports regarding superman the vigilante.this is due to pa asking him to keep himself hidden because world will fear him. As the vigilante, he fought for the little guy.But, lois getting into trouble made the guy show himself as superman to the world.Like in man of steel. Man of steel takes alot from different superman comics stories from different eras. You can basically create a list.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think to casual fans, like myself, Superman’s never had much change. That’s wrong but that’s the perception for many.

I don't know if it's all that wrong. The nitty gritty details of each version of Superman is something the fans are aware of, but the different takes also have a lot of things in common across the board. And each version largely remains static for long stretches. For all intents and purposes, Superman largely remains the same and just has some status quo changes here and there. He and Lois had their sharing of the secret, but after that they didn't really change at all.

But that goes for every big name character at DC. Character progression in mainstream comics isn't that frequent. It kind of can't be when there is no end point for the story to progress towards, and the main audience buying the stuff doesn't like change. Superheroes tend to settle into ruts until the next big run, some of which usually shake things up and have a more attention grabbing style, but don't rock the boat too much. And honestly? That goes for Marvel too. Marvel's characters, at least in comparison, started out as relatively more varied and complex than their DC counterparts. But that only gets them so far, a lot of them settle into "stats quo is God" mode after certain points. Like Reed Richards has been trying to cure Ben Grimm since the 60s, and isn't likely to succeed any time soon. And with the cross pollination of creative talent between the two companies, I think the big characters are about even now in terms of both complexity and complacency

[Jim Kelly]

I would point out here that the idea that Lois can’t both be “free” and be married to the man she has loved for 80 years is a strain of the exact sexism we are talking about though.

If you're calling me a sexist, then I have nothing more to say. Good night.

[Powerboy]

DC has frequently gone against Jerry Siegal's wishes. Early on, he wrote a canon story where Superman admits to Lois that he is Clark Kent. She is angry and feels he was playing her for a fool. She keeps his secret but resents him which was supposed to get quite a few good stories before moving on to the next level. But DC vetoed it.

Probably the biggest factor that has changed since Siegal wrote that is who the vast majority of comic book readers are. If they were still children, I'd say he was correct. But, even by 1981, one of the things that lost my continued interest in the Superman movies was the Amnesia Kiss. It had problems in itself but a greater issue for me was that the story was not going to progress but fall back into the same old endless rehash.

Then Marvel went ahead and had Spider-Man get married and I think DC saw that they could keep things in a holding pattern for decades but first, they needed to move the story ahead to something an adult could relate to and stay interested in (as in buying Superman comics every month) and so they moved it ahead to Superman and Lois getting married and then went into a long holding pattern.

I love the Silver Age stories and I love the George Reeves show. But that's nostalgically reading and watching stuff from my childhood. While I have some issues with MoS, one thing I thought when I saw it was, "Thank goodness they didn't fall into this endless rehash of Lois can't figure out that Clark is Superman and despises Clark but loves Superman who is playing her for a fool". I know some people don't like it but I think having them get married in the comics was a good move.

[Powerboy]

His reasoning within this very statement is wrong and kinda sexist. Marriage doesn't limit stories to babies and anniversaries. So honestly his thoughts here are based on a faulty premise and really don't hold any weight for me. And to hold up this one statement as some kind of publishing edict would be ridiculous. He evolved the character over the years as well, so continued evolution respects his creation. it's evolution that has actually kept Superman relevant, not rigid adherence to some original storytelling forumla.

The idea that marriage or commitment limits storytelling is a falecy anyways. It's only limit is the talent of the writer. They made Lois his "best friend" stripping all the originally intent for a romantic triangle from their characters as well. That was pretty disrespectful. They stuck with that for five years and the stories weren't any better and the comics slid right back towards irrelevance faster than they did when they got married.

Plus as much as some would like to pretend otherwise, Lois and Clark are cemented as a pop culture couple to an even greater extent than when he made that statement. Marriage is a natural evolution of that dynamic. It's not disrespectful to follow that evolution.

And I'm sure he'd respect the forthcoming CW checks his family is going to get just fine. I doubt he'd be having his lawyers prepare a cease and desist letter because it disrespects an interview from 1977.

Yes and I think there have been a number of stories, television shows, and so on, where the writers subscribe to the idea that having the main character get married becomes boring while I find the endless contrivances and absurd techniques to prevent the story from moving on to be what causes me to lose interest.

[seismic-2]

Just because Jerry Siegel was co-creator of the Superman comic does not mean that his ideas for new stories involving that character are necessarily the best ones. CoughCoughGeorgeLucasCoughCough

[Kuwagaton]

I think Peter as a character has always been prepared for growth more than Superman and most DC characters. When we were introduced to him, he was 15 years old before his arc progressed to him being in college fairly quickly. I think he actually made it to college before Dick Grayson, and that kid had a good two decades or so on him lol. It was pretty quickly established that this was a story of a young man growing into an adult and about the lessons he learned and hardships along the way. After a certain point, marriage or commitment to a partner is more baked into his story than Superman's, since Clark has been largely static since 1938, and most changes come about due to reboots or changing versions. Superman is more of a (to a point) static but layered archetypical character, while Spider-Man is (to a point) the more dynamic soap opera lead. Especially as Peter is the same character we knew since Amazing Fantasy #15, while Clark and Lois are all over the map depending on DC's mood any given week.

Well said. Within 30 years Peter had decent progress, but a huge chunk happened so quickly, within the first 50 issues or so. It's not crazy that by twenty five years, he had been with MJ long enough to marry after the other romances.

But Clark was so much more mature and prolific that I have a hard time thinking of him not being ready should a serious relationship be on the table.

[manwhohaseverything]

Just because Jerry Siegel was co-creator of the Superman comic does not mean that his ideas for new stories involving that character are necessarily the best ones. CoughCoughGeorgeLucasCoughCough

That doesn't matter. Best is subjective in these kind of things. But, ultimately superman has a voice. That transcended all transformations. It is the voice of the creators.you can't divorce that from the character.Here,he doesn't say its against the character's nature. He only said its bad for business.

[DochaDocha]

Haven't read all of the comments, so apologies in advance for any repetitiveness.

If you want Superman to have a complete character arc, marriage is something that probably should be included. If not, you get stuck in a holding pattern, creating a bit of monotony. I think in years passed, the recycling of Triangle for Two stories was pretty tenable because the reader base was always refreshing: comic readers age and move on to new interests, only to be replaced by young readers just getting into comics. The downside, of course, is that the fans who stick to the character get more and more takes on the same idea, which is only so satisfying. I also think that since Superman's peak decades ago, readers' average age went up, and a chunk of the readership ended up sticking around longer.

So now that I've stated that a complete character arc should involve the marriage, we come across this thorny issue: we have a pretty good sample size of Triangle for Two stories, as well as post-marriage stories. I can say with confidence I preferred the Triangle for Two stories. Every story has limited shelf life. I know back in the early 90's, I figured we had plenty of the foreplay, let's get down to business. Now that we shifted the paradigm and the novelty of new stories wore off, I say thank you for the diversity of stories. Perhaps it had to happen, and maybe it was just a matter of time for my interest to decline anyway, but I miss the older stuff. The juggling of secret ID's and such to me is the classic and essential Superman stuff, things that really defined the character for many generations, and I don't think Superman's popularity would've exploded the way it did decades ago without it. I think it's too bad that DCEU just skipped it altogether. Again, I understand for long-time Superman fans that a different take has its benefits, but it disappoints me that new fans who didn't grow up with Superman the way we did and for whom the DCEU was their introduction that they never got to experience the Triangle the way many of us did.

Personally, I think the Triangle stories are more appealing to little kids, and I also happen to be more interested in Superman stories aimed for younger audiences just because there's something great about how they poke fun at the ridiculousness of Superman. I guess Superman's son can also be appealing to kids, but that ends up diverting interest away from Supes himself and into Jon, which I don't like.

[stargazer01]

I think Superman has evolved beyond its creators, and it all depends on how good the writing and stories are. After 50 years of flirting or having romances with Lois Lane and other ladies, it was about time Clark showed how mature his love really was. I respect him more married than him fooling around with different women all the time. Married or not, he is still the same great guy who fights for truth and justice. Being married and having a kid means he has more emotional vulnerability than before, and that's interesting and adds more depth to the character.

I guess the guys that don't believe in marriage don't like it, but those of us who do, appreciate the growth in the character. The fact Lois is now thought as equal to Clark is great. And more importantly, Superman feels that way too. Admiring your partner is very important. In the Silver age I get the feeling Superman felt he was way above her.

Also, they can still tell some stories from when he is still single, why not?