Superman, Romantic Love, and the Structure of Myth

[misslane]

A discussion about myth as it relates to Superman's relationships with Lois Lane and Wonder Woman emerged out of some comments in the Wonder Woman forum. Unfortunately, it was adrift of the thread's topic and, according to a mod, the discussion compared and contrasted Superman's relationships in a way which touched on a non-Wonder Woman character, Lois, and thus the Wonder Woman forum was ill-suited to host such a discussion. Hopefully, the Superman forum is more appropriate given that Lois Lane is a member of Superman's supporting cast.

To introduce the topic, you can refer to the previous comments which begin here.

The crux of the debate is whether or not a relationship with Wonder Woman equally or more effectively draws out core themes in Superman's mythology via what scholars who study myth describe as binaries, and whether or not exploring new themes through new binaries alters the meaning of Superman's mythological themes in so extreme a manner that the myth and the character itself loses something fundamental. To better understand what is meant by myth, themes, and binaries, consider this:

For a writer, the most important theory Lévi-Strauss culled from his analysis of the structure of myth is that all mythic tales are constructed of binary oppositions. According to Lévi-Strauss, when you break down any myth into its thematic components (what he called “mythemes”) you will always observe two opposing themes. The job of the myth is to use the story as a vehicle to show how these irreconcilable mythemes can actually be reconciled in the same narrative. So, if a particular myth were to be broken down into two mythemes — say, life and death, for example — the myth as a whole would do the cultural work of bringing together (almost like magic or sleight of hand) life and death into something that seems coherent rather than irreconcilable. So essentially, Lévi-Strauss indicated that myth has such a powerful hold on our cultural psyche because it creates a way of making sense between two things that we think can never actually make sense together. For a storyteller, that’s a useful thing to keep in mind. Based on Lévi-Strauss’s theories, if you want your story to really strike a nerve with readers your story should bring into conversation two seemingly irreconcilable themes.

Keep in mind that each myth has its own unique themes. In his thesis, Worlds Will Live, Worlds Will Die: Myth, Metatext, Continuity and Cataclysm in DC Comics’ Crisis On Infinite Earths, author Adam C. Murdough describes Grant Morrison’s position on mythology and continuity in superhero stories: "once superhero characters have been fleshed out and rendered believable through the use of detailed continuity, they take on a firm reality of their own and henceforth cannot (or should not) be reduced again to mutable ciphers, subject to alteration at editorial whims.” Perhaps one of the best ways to understand more about myth and the implications of radical changes to myths is to, once again, refer to the ideas of Claude Levi-Strauss who believes “the elements of myth (the individual narrative elements, the persons or objects) are meaningless in themselves, and only take on significance through their relation with each other. [Therefore,] variant versions of a myth may show changes in surface meaning, but the structure and basic relationships will often remain constant.” Strauss has also argued that if “there is a meaning to be found in mythology, it cannot reside in the isolated elements which enter into the composition of myth, but only in the way those elements are combined.” The “relationships” between elements are what “makes [a myth] tick” (Harnish, Bridges to the Ancestors, p. 45).

The resolution or, said differently, the endgame of a particular story or stage of a story (myths can continue in cycles) is meant to represent a resolution of the opposing themes of that myth. To Strauss, “the contradictions we perceive in the world we naturally mediate by telling stories that bridge these contradictions in the world around us.” Such stories typically don’t have such contradictions resolved easily because the stories are meant to teach and inspire the audience to understand the amount of skill and struggle required to overcome them. To overcome obstacles in such a way is in essence what it means to be a hero. Elsa's journey in Frozen isn't to find another person with ice powers or powers, but to find a way to balance her power with her need for connection with her non-powered, vulnerable sister -- to not have a secret or be unable to express her love for Anna. If Superman's myth explores conflicts like urban v. rural, alien v. human, hope v. fear, appearance v. reality, public v. private, hero v. civilian, and the character himself is represented as a duality of both superheroic alien and reporter human, which love interest best fits and addresses those themes?

So, some questions to ponder: (1) What, in your opinion, are the key themes and conflicts in Superman's myth? (2) What, in your opinion, are the key themes and conflicts in Wonder Woman's myth? (3) How successfully does a Superman and Wonder Woman relationship address, develop, and resolve these themes and conflicts? (4) How far is too far when it comes to changing core elements of these myths?

To close, I’ll leave you with Grant Morrison’s own words from his recent book Supergods.

"We writers come and go, generations of artists leave their interpretations, and yet something persists, something that is always Superman. We have to adapt to his rules if we enter his world. We can never change him too much, or we lose what he is. There is a persistent set of characteristics that define Superman through decades of creative voices and it’s that essential, unshakeable quality of Superman-ness the character possesses in every incarnation, which is divinity by any other name."

That Superman loves, and in several instances eventually marries Lois Lane, is one of those “persistent characteristics that define Superman through decades of creative voices.” As Morrison said reflecting on his Superman 2000 pitch in Supergods, the Clark/Lois/Superman triangle is “intrinsic to the appeal of the stories.” Morrison didn’t just muse about the relationship as a scholar, however. His own comic books reflect his mindset about the couple. In his DC One Million, Morrison had Lois and Clark reunited after Lois had been dead for some time and essentially recreated their wedding. “It was like he’d waited a billion years for her,” says the narrator. “Like nothing else had meant anything all that time. It felt like the whole universe was being put right somehow.” In All-Star Superman, Lois asks Superman, “Everybody can guess what Lois Lane sees in you, but y’know, why me, Superman?” He answers, “Well, I guess there has to be one thing I just can’t help, Lois.”

[misslane]

In Campbell''s books, I don't think you'll find phrases like "Superman's monomyth," Herakles' monomyth, or Gilgamesh's's monomyth. I didn't find such phrases, when I looked over A Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myths earlier today (because I did want to make sure I wasn't misremembering something). Instead, he says that individual myths like the Herakles myth, the Gilgamesh myth, the Luke Skywalker myth, and what have you are all instances or manifestations of the one global monomyth. There's only one monomyth, in the way Cambell uses the term. There only needs to be one, because it's a capacious and flexible archetype. In anything I've seen, he does not use the word "monomyth" to mean a specific, finite cluster of myths with a shared protagonist and an "inviolable" set of themes.

Of course you won't find the phrases like "Superman's monomyth" in Campbell's work. Monomyth is the term used to describe the archetypal structure of a hero's journey. Thus, each hero has his or her own hero's journey, which stands as the hero's or heroine's unique entry in the monomythic structural tradition. Superman's manifestation of the monomyth contains his hero's journey with its associated themes. There may be multiple retellings or interpretations of Superman's story, Gilgamesh's story, or Herakles's story. And these interpretations can be quite flexible, but there are core thematic and structural elements that consistently endure that make them recognizable as belonging to their associated myths. You don't, for instance, retell a Beauty and the Beast story without some representation of monstrosity.

I also don't think that he was very impressed by distinctions between "canonical" and "non-canonical" versions . The only places I can think of where he discusses "canon" as such are where he talks about dogmatic religions having regrettably repressed vital traditions, like the Gnostic gospels.

The term canonical was my own. Myths come in many permutations, but these myths can have more traditional retellings and more apocryphal ones. For example, there are several versions of the Arthurian legend, but a modern retelling like Mists of Avalon would be a valuable addition to the tradition while simultaneously failing to support several of the myth's core structures and themes. It is a sort of AU of myths. Its power is in laying outside the common interpretations. A version of either Superman's or Wonder Woman's mythic hero's journey that interferes with either hero's fundamental elements places it in the AU category, which is where such stories have typically been told.

There's a place in The Power of Myths (which I've got on Kindle--I don't want to sound quite weird enough to have memorized or to have run to the library to research my postt!) where Bill Moyers asks Campbell about the codifcation of myths into laws, and Campbell says this:

That's the reduction of mythology to theology. Mythology is very fluid. Most of the myths are self-contradictory. You may even find four or five myths in a given culture, all giving different versions of the same mystery. Then theology comes along and says it has just got to be this way. Mythology is poetry, and the poetic language is very flexible.

To me, if someone tries to use Cambell's work as a rulebook to define what kinds of retellings of myths are "acceptable" or can be considered "canonical," or ""just had got to be this way," then that's getting close to this "reduction of mythology [and Campbell's work] to theology," and it's detracting from the flexibility of myths.

I'm not talking about codifying myths by insisting on inflexible storytelling. Superman's myth has been told and retold many times over the past seven decades with each version containing plenty of contradictions. Man of Steel contradicts Smallville at several points, for example. Yet, despite these contradictions, some structural elements and themes remain constant. The push and pull between alien and human, and its resolution through Lois is one of them. Your Campbell quote is saying the exact same thing: "different versions of the same mystery." What Superman and Wonder Woman does is explore a different mystery.

most readers probably need a study guide to notice most of the parallels between Ulysses and the Odyssey.

The need for a study guide is likely a product of the complexity of each individual story. Joyce, however, does some of the work for the reader by naming his chapters with their Homeric equivalents. The Molly-centric final chapter is conveniently named after Penelope.

To the extent that they represent two points of view---a pro- and anti-assimilation point of view--I don't know of any law that says their union can't represent (and actually help to bring about,as they influence and learn from each other) the reconciliation of those points of view. If there is such a law, then, in Campbell's terminology, it's probably more "theological" than "mythological."

You know and I know that I wasn't referring to legal barriers to Superman and Wonder Woman's literary union. My objection to the union serving as each character's mastering of two worlds, to use Campbellian terminology, is directly a result of my inability to accept that their relationship enables either character to reconcile the essential binary conflicts at the core of their separate myths.

If Superman is defined by his pro-assimilation stance, then his goal should be assimilation. A union with a member of his own minority group (superheroes) does not provide any sort of resolution to this conflict. Indeed, a happily ever after with Wonder Woman only serves to underscore Superman's isolation. Likewise, Wonder Woman's anti-assimilation point of view is unresolved through a union with Superman. Marrying a Kryptonian who lives as a human does not reaffirm her commitment to holding true to her Amazonian and Greek mythological ties.

It is impossible, in my opinion, for a Superman and Wonder Woman union to represent the reconciliation of their disparate points of view in a way that also allows each character to retain their defining position on the issue. The only way reconciliation can happen is for each character changes to accommodate the other. It is this act of change that shifts the story away from its foundational constructs.

Perhaps one of the best ways to understand more about myth and the implications of radical changes to myths is to consider the ideas of Levi-Strauss. As I'm sure you know, Levi-Strauss is a French anthropologist who proposed the structural theory of myth. He believes “the elements of myth (the individual narrative elements, the persons or objects) are meaningless in themselves, and only take on significance through their relation with each other. [Therefore,] variant versions of a myth may show changes in surface meaning, but the structure and basic relationships will often remain constant.” Levi-Strauss has also argued that if “there is a meaning to be found in mythology, it cannot reside in the isolated elements which enter into the composition of myth, but only in the way those elements are combined.” The “relationships” between elements are what “makes [a myth] tick” (Harnish, Bridges to the Ancestors, p. 45).

Since the Superman and Lois relationship has existed in the majority of the versions of the Superman myth, it stands to reason that to remove it robs the myth of its essential meaning. To return to your earlier Campbell citation, Superman and Wonder Woman creates a myth that is composed of enough contradictions to render it more a different version containing different mysteries. A retelling of the Lois and Clark love story, however, can feature new contradictions yet retain the same mysteries.

[MarvelMaster616]

Interesting concept, incorporating the structures of myth into Superman's story. I think a lot of it does apply. Superman has been compared to other mythic figures such as Jesus in the past. And his story, being the last son of a dying race, is a story that's pretty old. It's a big part of his appeal. He captures so many of the defining elements that make mythical heroes endure. He's larger than life, he represents powerful ideals, and he's able to do things that no ordinary being can do. I think a lot of writers over the years have acknowledged that, Grant Morrison being the most notable.

I also think Superman's history with Lois Lane is very consistent with these mythic structures. There are many great heroes, including those in Greek Mythology, who remain dedicated to a woman despite temptation, limitations, and obstacles. Demigods like Heracles married and had children with ordinary mortal women. And they were dedicated to those women in a way that helped humanize them, giving them a connection to humanity that they wouldn't have otherwise had. I think that has been a big part of Lois Lane's character over the decades in that she helps provide a human anchor who also embodies the ideals he seeks. She doesn't have powers, but she still adheres to the principles of truth, justice, and the American way. And I think that's a big part of what makes her a compelling character.

But I don't think Superman's relationship with Wonder Woman undermines these mythic principles. In the same way great heroes fall in love with mortal women, they also fall in love with demigoddesses and goddesses. That's another common theme and I think it adds new dimensions to Superman's mythos, so to speak. I don't agree with the notion that these two need to "reconcile" their differing views on values, identity, etc. I don't think Lois and Superman needed to do that either. I think it's inaccurate to say that two people need to somehow change who they are in order to accommodate someone else to have a healthy relationship. I actually think that can be pretty detrimental. People who sacrifice too much for the sake of a relationship creates a sense of unbalance. A relationship, more than anything, should inspire people to be better. That's what I think Wonder Woman and Superman have done a lot of in recent years. They accept each other for who they are. They don't try to change each other and they don't try to change themselves for the sake of one another. Instead, they learn from one another. Superman learns from Wonder Woman just as he did from Lois Lane. There are differences, but it hasn't changed who they are. I think that's where some of the older mythic themes break down somewhat because traditionally, sacrifice is seen as necessary. But in this day and age, I think the nature of that sacrifice has changed. Men aren't expected to sacrifice everything for the sake of a woman and women aren't expected to sacrifice for the sake of a man. It used to be that women had to basically say goodbye to her family and her home when she got married off. That's not the case anymore. Women are more independent and so are men. I think that reflects nicely with Superman/Wonder Woman. I think it even reflected just as much with Lois, but it's because of these more modern themes of myth that I feel Superman/Wonder Woman has more going for it.

[Blacksun]

Superman dating WW is like taking a time off from Superman mythos. Specially how it was done on new 52: he didn't pursue a elationship with lois because he was afraid she would get hurt. Then he choices WW because she has superpowers and is more like him in that department. That is run away from what Superman is.
Smallville tv show did much better and with more maturity. The point of superman is accepting his own humanity and embracing humanity. Not being afraid of being a human or being with a human.
another cool thing about superman is that he loves a flawed simple human woman, tha maybe she doesn't have powers but is awesome in her own right. Lois is a better writer than Clark, writing is something that his powers can't help him.

[misslane]

But I don't think Superman's relationship with Wonder Woman undermines these mythic principles.

Of course it does. Superman and Wonder Woman's relationship can't possibly recreate the mythic principles traditionally associated with his alien/human (god/mortal) relationship with Lois Lane.

In the same way great heroes fall in love with mortal women, they also fall in love with demigoddesses and goddesses.

Yes, that's true. The point I was making, however, was that myths that shift the mysteries they explore become different myths. Superman's myth has never been defined by the themes associated with gods falling in love with goddesses.

That's another common theme and I think it adds new dimensions to Superman's mythos, so to speak.

It's a common theme in all myth that does not apply to the Superman myth. It would be like replacing Merlin in Arthurian legend with Loki of Norse myth. Exploring the new theme you suggest doesn't add to Superman's myth. It very clearly replaces one mythological theme (mythemes) with a brand new one.

I don't agree with the notion that these two need to "reconcile" their differing views on values, identity, etc. I don't think Lois and Superman needed to do that either. I think it's inaccurate to say that two people need to somehow change who they are in order to accommodate someone else to have a healthy relationship. I actually think that can be pretty detrimental. People who sacrifice too much for the sake of a relationship creates a sense of unbalance.

I agree. The sort of reconciliation of binaries that should occur is the coexistence of two conflicting concepts rather than compromise.

A relationship, more than anything, should inspire people to be better. That's what I think Wonder Woman and Superman have done a lot of in recent years. They accept each other for who they are. They don't try to change each other and they don't try to change themselves for the sake of one another. Instead, they learn from one another. Superman learns from Wonder Woman just as he did from Lois Lane. There are differences, but it hasn't changed who they are.

I believe Superman and Wonder Woman's relationship has changed who they are. Their relationship represents a commitment to forging deeper connections with an elect minority (superheroes) instead of deepening relationships with humans they care about yet keep at arm's length out of fear. Superman should be a character whose journey can include fear-induced isolation, but it should never end there. As a representative of a pro-assimilation point of view, his myth ultimately should arc towards greater integration with humanity. A union with a Greek goddess with extraordinary abilities does not support this vital Superman theme.

I think it even reflected just as much with Lois, but it's because of these more modern themes of myth that I feel Superman/Wonder Woman has more going for it.

Both Lois and Wonder Woman are independent and uncompromising women. Superman and Wonder Woman's relationship, in my opinion, contains far more old-fashioned themes than Lois and Clark's relationship.

[UltraWoman]

I like the idea of looking at the Lois/Superman(Clark) relationship through a mythic lens. I've been racking my mind pretty hard and (at least in the grecco-roman myths, which are the ones I'm mot familiar outside of the traditional Judeo-Christian ones) and I can't think of a single god/god pairing that has that great of a relationship/pairing. The only god/god ones I can think of all involve some sort of adultery (Ares/Aphrodite, Zeus with MANY other gods/demigods even including my favorite offspring, Athena, etc.) and none with even a semi-positive relationship.

Perhaps someone can point me to one but I can't think of any.

[Blind Target]

Here is my simplistic take on this.

If the point is to have Superman assimilate into human society, then it cannot be satisfactory to leave the character perpetually caught up, between his two worlds, alien by nature, human by nurture.

As long as readers see him as an alien, it doesn't matter if he has human friends, human wife, or human job. He is just an alien masquerading as a human being. His every action will be analyzed to death, to determine if he is moving closer to humanity or farther away. It's a never ending journey.

The solution to this, is to have him lose his powers, grow old with Lois and retire. In this way, he gets to fully assimilate into human society, and no one gets to question his humanity ever again.


Myths are tragedies, maybe the tragedy is that Superman won't be fully accepted unless he loses that which makes him Super, or maybe the tragedy is that humans aren't ready to accept others who aren't just like themselves.

In this modern age, assimilation isn't seen as important as it once it was. Assimilation, leads towards repression, people living in closets, hiding who they truly are, to be less different, to fit in, to be just like everybody else.

There's being a paradigm shift towards diversity. Today people are encouraged to respect and celebrate our differences. To not hide who they truly are and what makes them special. How are people supposed to connect with Superman in this modern age, when his sending the opposite message?.

It's a matter of assimilation vs diversity, how should Superman integrate into human society, which one does Lois and Diana represent?. Should Superman embrace his unique heritage, or should he give it up for the sake of assimilation?.

Superman dating WW is like taking a time off from Superman mythos. Specially how it was done on new 52: he didn't pursue a elationship with lois because he was afraid she would get hurt. Then he choices WW because she has superpowers and is more like him in that department. That is run away from what Superman is.
Smallville tv show did much better and with more maturity. The point of superman is accepting his own humanity and embracing humanity. Not being afraid of being a human or being with a human.
another cool thing about superman is that he loves a flawed simple human woman, tha maybe she doesn't have powers but is awesome in her own right. Lois is a better writer than Clark, writing is something that his powers can't help him.

Last time i checked, Superman wanted to protect Wonder Woman, to keep his problems away from her and not make her a target for his enemies, like Zod. It's not like when he started dating her, he didn't have to worry about her safety, it's something that he needed to learn to accept. His problems are now hers and vice versa.

Theres a reason why Batman is emotionally closed off and lives in a cave. He doesn't bring his romantic interests into his world, they are either already part of it or they are not, but nobody questions his humanity. Superman doesn't bring bring Lois in to his world, and suddenly it becomes a question of his humanity. Even though he is not some alien, fresh of the ship, who knows nothing about humanity. He grew up as a human and at this point in time he is more human than alien.


It doesn't matter how much Superman embraces humanity, if the only way he can prove it to you, is if he has a human pet, like an accessory, a status symbol. For too long writers have relied on this gimmick, to supposedly humanize the character, and for just as long, readers have complained that they can't relate to him.

The relationship of Clark and Diana, forces the writers to actually focus on the human side of this characters, instead of relying on human characters acting as proxies that readers can relate to.

[misslane]

If the point is to have Superman assimilate into human society, then it cannot be satisfactory to leave the character perpetually caught up, between his two worlds, alien by nature, human by nurture.

Assimilation does not require an individual with a dual identity to vacillate between one identity and the other. What it means, especially for Superman, is feeling equally self-actualized and content with both identities. It means one is capable of being both alien and human.

As long as readers see him as an alien, it doesn't matter if he has human friends, human wife, or human job. He is just an alien masquerading as a human being. His every action will be analyzed to death, to determine if he is moving closer to humanity or farther away. It's a never ending journey.

It is not necessary for Superman to reject his alien identity in order to reconcile the alien/human binary associated with his myth. Identifying as alien also does not in any way suggest that he's just masquerading as human. The symbolic union of alien and human, which is represented by Superman and Lois, allows Clark to self-identify as both alien and human. It is a union that allows alien and human to become one. Superman's alien heritage is treasured and nurtured because a human, Lois, accepts and loves that side of him wholeheartedly. Lois Lane doesn't just love Clark Kent.

The solution to this, is to have him lose his powers, grow old with Lois and retire. In this way, he gets to fully assimilate into human society, and no one gets to question his humanity ever again.

Bicultural identity development does not end with the individual choosing one identity over the other. It's about finding a way to balance and nurture both identities. A union with Lois Lane is the best means of symbolically representing that balance.

Myths are tragedies, maybe the tragedy is that Superman won't be fully accepted unless he loses that which makes him Super, or maybe the tragedy is that humans aren't ready to accept others who aren't just like themselves.

Acceptance that is predicated on rejecting core aspects of the self is not acceptance. The best way for Superman to be fully accepted is for a human, like Lois, to accept and love all parts of him. Lois' love and acceptance represents the love and acceptance of humanity for this alien.

There's being a paradigm shift towards diversity. Today people are encouraged to respect and celebrate our differences. To not hide who they truly are and what makes them special. How are people supposed to connect with Superman in this modern age, when his sending the opposite message?.

A union with Lois does not send the opposite message. It sends the message that a human whose life's work is to make the world a better place through the written word sees Superman as humanity's best hope. Lois, more than any other human, is the one cheering Superman on because she believes he's a good man worth celebrating regardless of his extraterrestrial origins. It's Lois who helps humanity see Superman through her accepting eyes.

Moreover, Clark does not hide his true nature by living a human life as Clark Kent. Clark Kent is not something Superman does because he's afraid of society's rejection. Superman lives half his life as Clark Kent because he IS Clark Kent. It is in his nature to be Clark Kent. For him to discard Clark to validate his alien origins would itself be an act of self-denial.

It's a matter of assimilation vs diversity, how should Superman integrate into human society, which one does Lois and Diana represent?. Should Superman embrace his unique heritage, or should he give it up for the sake of assimilation?.

With Lois, Superman gets to be loved as Clark Kent and Superman. He is accepted as an alien and as a human without having to give up any part of his true self. By contrast, for Superman to reject integration in favor of only celebrating that which is alien in him would be an act of abnegation. Clark Kent is a real and beloved part of Superman. It is not a mask Superman maintains merely as protection against society's rejection. Superman loves being Clark because Clark is who he is as much as Superman is who he is.

[MarvelMaster616]

Of course it does. Superman and Wonder Woman's relationship can't possibly recreate the mythic principles traditionally associated with his alien/human (god/mortal) relationship with Lois Lane.



Yes, that's true. The point I was making, however, was that myths that shift the mysteries they explore become different myths. Superman's myth has never been defined by the themes associated with gods falling in love with goddesses.



It's a common theme in all myth that does not apply to the Superman myth. It would be like replacing Merlin in Arthurian legend with Loki of Norse myth. Exploring the new theme you suggest doesn't add to Superman's myth. It very clearly replaces one mythological theme (mythemes) with a brand new one.



I agree. The sort of reconciliation of binaries that should occur is the coexistence of two conflicting concepts rather than compromise.



I believe Superman and Wonder Woman's relationship has changed who they are. Their relationship represents a commitment to forging deeper connections with an elect minority (superheroes) instead of deepening relationships with humans they care about yet keep at arm's length out of fear. Superman should be a character whose journey can include fear-induced isolation, but it should never end there. As a representative of a pro-assimilation point of view, his myth ultimately should arc towards greater integration with humanity. A union with a Greek goddess with extraordinary abilities does not support this vital Superman theme.



Both Lois and Wonder Woman are independent and uncompromising women. Superman and Wonder Woman's relationship, in my opinion, contains far more old-fashioned themes than Lois and Clark's relationship.

If you're going to use this perspective to justify Superman/Lois while criticizing Superman/Wonder Woman, then I think you're making these points for all the wrong reasons. These themes of myths and mortal connections aren't required for Superman and Lois to have a relationship, nor is it a legitimate criticism of the Superman/Wonder Woman relationship. They're just a take on common story elements that have propagated throughout history. Superman doesn't have to abide by these myths completely. In fact, there's so much variation among mythic heroes that it could be argued that no character is consistent with every story element. Superman is his own kind of myth with some common themes. I think that the circumstances under which Superman/Wonder Woman work in the sense that it established a strong foundation for a relationship that has evolved considerably over a span of nearly three years now. The circumstances under which Superman and Lois built their relationship worked very well during the time in which it unfolded as well. If you want to argue one is better than the other, then you're not really focusing on the themes here. I believe any relationship between characters can be made to work if it's developed properly. Not everyone enjoys it. That doesn't mean criticism like this is legitimate.

[dangleo61288]

Here is my simplistic take on this.

If the point is to have Superman assimilate into human society, then it cannot be satisfactory to leave the character perpetually caught up, between his two worlds, alien by nature, human by nurture.

As long as readers see him as an alien, it doesn't matter if he has human friends, human wife, or human job. He is just an alien masquerading as a human being. His every action will be analyzed to death, to determine if he is moving closer to humanity or farther away. It's a never ending journey.

The solution to this, is to have him lose his powers, grow old with Lois and retire. In this way, he gets to fully assimilate into human society, and no one gets to question his humanity ever again.


Myths are tragedies, maybe the tragedy is that Superman won't be fully accepted unless he loses that which makes him Super, or maybe the tragedy is that humans aren't ready to accept others who aren't just like themselves.

In this modern age, assimilation isn't seen as important as it once it was. Assimilation, leads towards repression, people living in closets, hiding who they truly are, to be less different, to fit in, to be just like everybody else.

There's being a paradigm shift towards diversity. Today people are encouraged to respect and celebrate our differences. To not hide who they truly are and what makes them special. How are people supposed to connect with Superman in this modern age, when his sending the opposite message?.

It's a matter of assimilation vs diversity, how should Superman integrate into human society, which one does Lois and Diana represent?. Should Superman embrace his unique heritage, or should he give it up for the sake of assimilation?.




Last time i checked, Superman wanted to protect Wonder Woman, to keep his problems away from her and not make her a target for his enemies, like Zod. It's not like when he started dating her, he didn't have to worry about her safety, it's something that he needed to learn to accept. His problems are now hers and vice versa.

Theres a reason why Batman is emotionally closed off and lives in a cave. He doesn't bring his romantic interests into his world, they are either already part of it or they are not, but nobody questions his humanity. Superman doesn't bring bring Lois in to his world, and suddenly it becomes a question of his humanity. Even though he is not some alien, fresh of the ship, who knows nothing about humanity. He grew up as a human and at this point in time he is more human than alien.


It doesn't matter how much Superman embraces humanity, if the only way he can prove it to you, is if he has a human pet, like an accessory, a status symbol. For too long writers have relied on this gimmick, to supposedly humanize the character, and for just as long, readers have complained that they can't relate to him.

The relationship of Clark and Diana, forces the writers to actually focus on the human side of this characters, instead of relying on human characters acting as proxies that readers can relate to.

The solution is him accepting that he is both human and alien and balancing his worlds. And he is not just human and alien but he is also a superhero. He is 3 different people: Clark, Kal El, and Superman. He can't choose any one from them to be.

[misslane]

These themes of myths and mortal connections aren't required for Superman and Lois to have a relationship, nor is it a legitimate criticism of the Superman/Wonder Woman relationship.

The conflicting binary themes of a particular myth are typically symbolized by a marriage (real or symbolic). A relationship is required.

They're just a take on common story elements that have propagated throughout history. Superman doesn't have to abide by these myths completely. In fact, there's so much variation among mythic heroes that it could be argued that no character is consistent with every story element. Superman is his own kind of myth with some common themes.

I'm confused. It has been my point of view all along that Superman "has his own kind of myth" with his own themes. All permutations of the monomyth follow the same basic structure, but explore hero-specific themes. The themes of the Arthurian legend are not the same themes explored in the Hindu The Ramayana. The key is that the same mysteries be explored whatever contradictions exist in the retellings of myth.

I think that the circumstances under which Superman/Wonder Woman work in the sense that it established a strong foundation for a relationship that has evolved considerably over a span of nearly three years now. The circumstances under which Superman and Lois built their relationship worked very well during the time in which it unfolded as well. If you want to argue one is better than the other, then you're not really focusing on the themes here. I believe any relationship between characters can be made to work if it's developed properly. Not everyone enjoys it. That doesn't mean criticism like this is legitimate.

I am not making an argument about how either relationship has been developed at all. I'm making a very specific argument that Superman's relationship with Wonder Woman replaces a core theme of his myth with a new theme that is inconsistent with it. The criticism I am offering is based in the structural study of myth, and it is rooted in ideas respected comic writers, like Grant Morrison, support. The bottom line is that Superman's myth explores the binary between alien and human. A relationship with Wonder Woman does not reconcile or resolve that binary theme.