What does Superman gain from a romance with Wonder Woman?

[superduperman]

I think there is a good reason the pre-52 incarnations never really went down this road and that was because people find superhuman/human relationships much more interesting. Is the hero putting his love at risk by going out there everyday to fight bad guys? Will he come home to her? We saw this with both Superman and Spider-Man. With two super-beings on equal footing it takes a little something away from the risk and drama. The Superman/WonderWoman comic is excellent but some of the suspense is gone that you saw with the Lois/Clark relationship. They can have children together in a way that him and Lois probably couldn't but if that's the only thing they share, that's not really a basis for a good ongoing story. I never bought into the idea of Superman as outsider. He was raised on Earth by Earth parents in a small town. Whereas WW was raised on an island with no men and very little understanding of the outside world. If anything, they couldn't be more different.

Ironically, I think the book that got the Superman/Wonder Woman relationship right is Injustice. She has an unrequited love for him but he is so obsessed with Lois he will literally rule the world to avenge her death.

[misslane]

Its not the same thing. You can have a general compassion for people while at the same time being distanced from them as a whole. That's what Wonder Woman has. But she doesn't want just that anymore, she wants a deeper, more personal connection. And yes, Superman inspired that. And I acknowledge and respect there are levels of even that that rub people the wrong way. I too think she should have this of her own accord. But there's that, and then there's saying. "Superman's teaching her compassion" as a blanket statement. That is just flat out untruthful.

General compassion is not the sort of compassion that has always been associated with Wonder Woman. Diana should not require Clark's example and a villain as an object lesson in order to understand, appreciate, and demonstrate the totality of what it means to be compassionate. Superman taught Wonder Woman how to best demonstrate compassion. That's not cool.

[Sacred Knight]

I don't dispute that she had these things naturally before. She did. Granted still taught certain things in some sense or another as Docha pointed out, but usually by a member of her own cast. And it goes both ways. Superman should know how to operate in a battle naturally too, or if he learned it from anyone he should have learned it from the Legion. But it is what it is in this continuity and I won't dispute the fact that in past continuities this wasn't at all the case.

That said, I still disagree with your assertion that he taught her anything specifically about compassion. He demonstrated a connection to the common person that he had, that she saw and she decided she wanted. According to her, she fights the bad guy then leaves, usually. Why is she fighting bad guys, though? To protect people. That's compassion. What lacks is a connection. Two different things. The latter reliant on the former, but still not the same thing. The book never demonstrates she needs him nor anyone else for that much. Still not cool? Eh, again, not my ultimate preference either, but that's besides the point.

[hellacre]

Ironically, I think the book that got the Superman/Wonder Woman relationship right is Injustice. She has an unrequited love for him but he is so obsessed with Lois he will literally rule the world to avenge her death.

And that unfortunately is what DC has done in some Superman stories which to me is the opposite of what he stands for. Make him moon, obsess, quit, turn evil etc because if Lois is not around he can't be who he is supposed to be. That's not a nice statement to make of any hero. Be it Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash,.Aquaman etc etc...no one's goodness should be defined by who they date, sleep with or marry. That is not why anyone is a hero imo. And of said person is not around it should not make one iota of difference. Else it makes Superman not the hero we think he is but a guy who is about himself and what makes him happy. Heroes are heroes despite pain, tragedy and it's not that you have it all that makes you a hero...it's because you can be true to your beliefs and even in the face of adversity...you remain noble and good. When things are really bad that is when you can judge a man's character imo.

[Blacksun]

I don't think it's so much compassion that she gains from him so much as learning to understand and relate to people. If you consider that Superman's about 27-28 years old, and he spent the entire time living among humans, whereas she's spent about 5-6 years living as a public superhero among humans, you could make a logical argument that she's not going to understand their day-to-day humdrum the way he would, just as she's lived in a warrior culture so she's going to understand warfare more than he would.

What does he have to gain from her? Back in the Post-Crisis era, I think it was clear that she was more decisive than he was, which was a major issue that built up to all those Crises in the middle of the decade. If that type of characterization were to carry over now, and to some extent I feel it does, we would see that WW would be more likely to decide expediently what's right and wrong, act on it, and deal with the consequences, whereas the back end of Post-Crisis Superman was often caught in paralysis by analysis, not knowing what the right thing to do was, and being afraid of bad outcomes. That's why we got stories like "Grounded," or that infamous Batman line about the last time he inspired anyone was when he died. I think this is where Tomasi was trying to go, but it had very mixed results.

If you followed the Morrison model, though, that's not something Superman would gain, because Morrison's Supes is always a step ahead. He's prepared to be quick to recognize and analyze a situation, so he doesn't need Batman or Wonder Woman or whomever to tell him to act. So what should he get? I think it should be something similar to what she gets from him: merely another person's point of view of the world, and not to mention companionship.

Honestly, though, asking the question of what do the characters gain, other than companionship, would be the wrong way to write them. Granted, no two people are exactly the same, and you and your friends/partners/relatives/whoever will be better at some things than the other, and the other will be better in other things than you, and given enough time together your good and bad habits will probably diffuse into one another. However, that's likely not the primary goal in forming bonds with other people. I think when you look back in Superman's past, a lot of people liked to ask what does he see in Lois, or what does he gain, and the only answer that really mattered was does being with her make him happy. I never had a need for their relationship to be justified any further than that. Perhaps people think that kind of writing is kind of bland, but I'll take its realism over melodrama.

Anyway, that's probably why I like buddy films and hate rom-coms.

well she learned compassion from superman. that is a fact. i still think it is a poor excuswe, ww was 5 years living in mans world. this is insulting, she didnt need superman guide in azz where she was integrated.

at least they got a team up book together.

well superman now dates the hottest female.character, this shallow things seems to be what matters for new superman. so probably this is a up. it didnt made super sells more or be more popular

[Sacred Knight]

No its not a fact.

[hellacre]

What does he gain?

1.) A new partner with a new world for him to explore.

2.) A partner who shares some of his feelings of isolation and "otherness."

3.) New story options that didn't exist before thanks to #1 and #2.

That's pretty much all that is required.

Exactly.

I think she can understand his burdens and the weight he feels on his shoulders because she has her share of it. Even more so because of who she is. Must be nice to have someone who knows exactly what it feels like to fight a hard fight and come home exhausted, or to lose people under your watch...she does not only listen but she can really empathize. If it is the person you're living with, well I expect that offers a level of comfort. They must also have frustrations eg of dealing with a Lex or a Barbara Minerva. I expect for Diana after dealing with a dysfunctional God family...having a boyfriend who is grounded and at heart a man who is not needy but content with his lot in life , and wanting only to better the world not about wanting power etc...that for her would be refreshing. I could see that being very attractive to her because like him, she is not about power. Anyone who sees that imo fails to grasp her character in the new 52 on the whole. Her character while powerful, is not defined by wanting power to be above others.

Some people keep saying he teaches her compassion but in JL when Clark was not able to trust Lex, ( and for good reason because of his experience with him) and it was Diana who was there to give another pov. And he trusts Diana. Why wouldn't you? So goes both ways and to suit the situation. Tomasi was a tad heavy handed in #13 but end of the day it's clear they both are compassionate characters.

Clark is very idealistic but Diana I think has a streak of pragmatism. But that's what makes them both unique and different and where they can overlap and learn. She is proud of her heritage and who she is and does not feel any need to hide, the good or the bad. Clark is about protecting, and as others have said she defuses some of that fear of his. He can get on with his job without obsessing over her safety. Being together imo has made them at least very clear about their responsibility as heroes and I don't see either having to feel guilt about it if they have to leave each other to do their job. Clark is just learning his own heritage and has a lot to learn still. Clark knows his way about our world and modern everyday life, Diana is adapting to our culture from having being raised, not only in another geographic location, but a whole time period. Clark said he was happy not hiding and being just himself with her. Batman is a friend but they are not on the basis of hanging out with a beer or going to the game, are they? If you have a girlfriend you share many recreational things and emotional moments. So while some might say he could do some of this with Jim or Bruce...not really on the same level. It's not the same as having all the above with someone you're intimate with.

Thing is relationships, no matter who you with end of the day...be it a meta couple or human/human, meta/human...you learn trust, patience, compromise, how to open your heart etc etc. People get hung up on the one type of relationships are better. Not really. It's how they are written. Mera/Arthur are meta and they work just fine as do several other DC and Marvel couplings. And if relationships have new things to explore and challenges then that makes them ripe for telling stories. Doing over what we have seen before does not make something better because that is all we had. Both dynamics are different. Some just might prefer one over the other. Yet shouldn't mean you don't try something new.

[Last Son of Krypton]

What does he gain from the relationship with Diana? A bit of happiness definitely. The SM/WW series is the one where you see Clark/Superman smile more often.

[misslane]

And that unfortunately is what DC has done in some Superman stories which to be is the opposite of what he stands for. Make him moon, obsess, quit, turn evil etc because if Lois is not around he can't be who he is supposed to be. That's not a nice statement to make of any hero. Be it Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash,.Aquaman etc etc...no one's goodness should be defined by who they date, sleep with nor marry. That is not why anyone is a hero imo. And of said person is not around it should not make one iota of difference. Else it makes Superman not the hero we think he is but a guy who is about himself and what makes him happy. Heroes are heroes despite pain, tragedy and it's not that you have it all that makes you a hero...it's because you can be true to your beliefs and even in the face of adversity...you remain noble and good. When things are really bad that is when you can judge a man's character imo.

I have no idea why you repeatedly misrepresent Superman's characterization in the Injustice universe. He did not become the tyrant he is because Lois is not around. He became a tyrant because his wife, his child, and his city were all taken from him in an instant at his own hand. He became a tyrant because in that moment of self-loathing and grief he lost control and abandoned his ideals. It wasn't just Lois. Few of the heroes in the Injustice universe are sterling symbols of the heroes we've come to know and love in regular continuities. Wonder Woman, for example, is also a shadow of her true self in Injustice. It is simply not an Elseworld anyone should take seriously as commentary on the question of the core of these characters.

[Francisco]

An extremely hot and intelligent loving partner??

[OpticDreams]

An extremely hot and intelligent loving partner??

Damn right!!!

[misslane]

An extremely hot and intelligent loving partner??

That's true and great, but it's also not something Superman didn't have before. It's not a net gain but more of a net neutral.

[OpticDreams]

That's true and great, but it's also not something Superman didn't have before. It's not a net gain but more of a net neutral.

So it always goes back to Lois somehow?

[Xarek]

I think there is a good reason the pre-52 incarnations never really went down this road and that was because people find superhuman/human relationships much more interesting. Is the hero putting his love at risk by going out there everyday to fight bad guys? Will he come home to her? We saw this with both Superman and Spider-Man. With two super-beings on equal footing it takes a little something away from the risk and drama. The Superman/WonderWoman comic is excellent but some of the suspense is gone that you saw with the Lois/Clark relationship. They can have children together in a way that him and Lois probably couldn't but if that's the only thing they share, that's not really a basis for a good ongoing story. I never bought into the idea of Superman as outsider. He was raised on Earth by Earth parents in a small town. Whereas WW was raised on an island with no men and very little understanding of the outside world. If anything, they couldn't be more different.

Ironically, I think the book that got the Superman/Wonder Woman relationship right is Injustice. She has an unrequited love for him but he is so obsessed with Lois he will literally rule the world to avenge her death.

Some of this is true but only in relation to the way comics were structured in the 80's and 90's, where writers used the superhuman/human relationships as means in order to develop conflict and angst. They pretty much rekindled the romance motif from the 60's comics and pulp novels. That made for some good character development at times but as time went by the trope got so pervasive that there wasn't a single issue that didn't delve into love triangles, divorces, or marital problems galore (comics became panels of soap operas). That was all well and good but times change and with it the theme lost strength. The "human" love interest (which was predominantly female mind you) is no longer in need of "much" saving anymore (ie. Mary Jane, Lois Lane). Those stories have been told countless times already and the question of "What happens when a Superhero falls in love with a human?" is no longer relevant since everybody knows the answer already (I'm obviously speaking in terms of story themes).

In regards to Superman and Wonder Woman they do have a lot of similarities most people tend to ignore (and history as well but that's a topic for another thread entirely). Compassion, loyalty, truth and justice is what drives them (pre and post New52). But despite being very powerful they are alone in the burdens they have to carry on their shoulders. Superman, despite his very best efforts, can never be us because he is better than us by nature. No matter how hard he tries he is still an alien. The same with Wonder Woman - warrior, princess, ambassador. Whether she is clay or the daughter of Gods, she grew up in isolation and despite these hardships, she wants to help humanity with empathy and diplomacy (this isolation theme was more prominent for both of them pre-flashpoint). Hence lies the tragedy/sacrifice and true heroism of both these characters. They might have different approaches, but on this important thing they are the same.

So what do they both gain? On a character level, it creates more synergy. The concept of the Trinity is even better: brother, sister, lover, friend. All the positive relationship types are encompassed in just those three heroes. On a reader's level? It creates more opportunities for better stories.

[misslane]

I don't dispute that she had these things naturally before. She did. Granted still taught certain things in some sense or another as Docha pointed out, but usually by a member of her own cast. And it goes both ways. Superman should know how to operate in a battle naturally too, or if he learned it from anyone he should have learned it from the Legion. But it is what it is in this continuity and I won't dispute the fact that in past continuities this wasn't at all the case.

Superman has always been competent in battle but not the same caliber warrior or tactician as Wonder Woman. When he learns from Wonder Woman, in my opinion, he isn't learning skills he should already know or learning something he used to know in prior continuities. It doesn't go both ways. I believe it is telling that this continuity -- the one in which Superman and Wonder Woman are a couple -- seems to necessitate contriving deficits, incompetencies, and flaws in order to create interest and drive plots.

That said, I still disagree with your assertion that he taught her anything specifically about compassion. He demonstrated a connection to the common person that he had, that she saw and she decided she wanted.

Learning from someone else's example is still learning. It's called observational learning. Diana learned how to be a more compassionate hero by learning from Superman's example.

According to her, she fights the bad guy then leaves, usually. Why is she fighting bad guys, though? To protect people. That's compassion. What lacks is a connection. Two different things. The latter reliant on the former, but still not the same thing. The book never demonstrates she needs him nor anyone else for that much. Still not cool? Eh, again, not my ultimate preference either, but that's besides the point.

I don't think compassion is as simple as good guys fighting bad guys in order to protect people. What you're describing sounds more like Wonder Woman's typical passion for justice. Compassion, on the other hand, is more than justice. It has much more of an emotional component. To be compassionate is to experience the suffering of others; it is co-suffering. It requires identifying with others. While I believe Diana cares about people and loves everyone, in the most recent issue of Superman/Wonder Woman #17, her compassion was downplayed and ignored in order for her to learn from a villain's game and Superman's example.