Divergence 1: Exposed (FCBD) SPOILERS

[MeloDet]

....That would kind of make her a self righteous douchebag, don't you think? Especially when, as a human being, she can't know for a fact there was no better solution. Just that she couldn't think of a better one.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking. I was trying to envision an interaction between Lois and Clark where she expresses sympathy at having turned his life upside down while maintaining that she doesn't feel guilty or that she "did what she had to," but I couldn't picture a scene like that where Lois came across as anything other than an insensitive prick. I mean just picture her showing up at his door and saying something like "I'm sorry that your life was turned upside down Clark, but I did what I had to do and I won't apologize for that." Who the hell would accept an apology like that from someone they're already upset with? There are times where someone is so negatively impacted that it doesn't matter whether or not you had a good reason, you still bloody apologize.

[misslane]

Yeah, this is what I was thinking. I was trying to envision an interaction between Lois and Clark where she expresses sympathy at having turned his life upside down while maintaining that she doesn't feel guilty or that she "did what she had to," but I couldn't picture a scene like that where Lois came across as anything other than an insensitive prick. I mean just picture her showing up at his door and saying something like "I'm sorry that your life was turned upside down Clark, but I did what I had to do and I won't apologize for that." Who the hell would accept an apology like that from someone they're already upset with? There are times where someone is so negatively impacted that it doesn't matter whether or not you had a good reason, you still bloody apologize.

If she did what had to be done for justifiable reasons, and she did them the right way, then there's no reason for her to apologize. There's even less reason why Clark should specifically be angry with her. Can he be frustrated and upset about how the secret being out will affect his life? Sure, and Lois absolutely should empathize with his anger and frustration that these things had to happen to him under the circumstances. But there's no reason for her to apologize for doing what had to be done, especially since Clark very much is on shaky ethical ground; his own inaction and indictment of his character.

Based on the "Divergence" issue, it seems pretty clear that Lois isn't just apologizing because she simply feels sorry for Clark and has empathy for his situation. She is also apologizing to him because there was something about how the way she went about exposing him that was unacceptable and thus worthy of reproach. Consequently, I cannot see any scenario in which Lois is not being written out of character by being painted as unethical and incompetent.

[misslane]

....That would kind of make her a self righteous douchebag, don't you think? Especially when, as a human being, she can't know for a fact there was no better solution. Just that she couldn't think of a better one.
I mean, it never happened to you? To have a friend, or a family member or whatever, being negatively impacted by a choice you made (or didn't make in some cases), even tough you couldn't know it would, or didn't have a choice in the first place?
Because let me tell you one thing: that whole "feeling sorry for the guy, but not feeling guilt" thing you talked about? That not how it goes. If Clark really is Lois' friend, and if she actually does care for his well being, it doesn't matter if she was justified or not in her actions. She will blame herself for what happened. Hell, sometimes you feel guilty about your friends' suffering even though you litterally have nothing to do with it, because you feel you could have done something to prevent it. That's because that guilt comes from empathy. She empathizes with what he goes through (or what she thinks he goes through at any rate) and, as justified what she did might be, she did cause this to him, hence guilt. Another thing you can take my word from: when it comes to you're friends' suffering, you're not objective. Lois might have objectively done the right thing, but since she cares about Clark, she's certainly going to feel like she has. That's how it works, plain and simple.

Lois didn't cause this to happen. If Lois is doing this for the right reasons (e.g. to protect Clark, to protect the world, to fulfill her ethical obligation as a journalist), then she didn't cause this to happen. She can feel sorry for him, she can feel empathy for what he is going through, and she can feel obligated to do whatever she can to make the blowback as painless as possible. But if she did the best she could and she did it for the right reasons, then she shouldn't apologize. She shouldn't feel guilty for doing her best or for doing the right thing. She can feel bad that it happened, but guilt implies culpability. Lois is not responsible for what is happening to Clark if she did the right thing for the right reasons, and if she did it the right way. The "Divergence" comic, however, clearly suggests otherwise. It suggests Lois feels guilty because she did something she had no right to do, and she did the thing she had no right to do in a way that did not minimize harm. In other words, this issue implies Lois did do something wrong. I am not okay with that.

[misslane]

I'm glad Lois did this, she finally has flaws(not character flaws but motivational flaws) and imperfect convictions that make her fallible instead of infallible. It's most human thing I've seen Lois do in over most of her existence, shows she's not a incorruptible soul and a purity sue bordering on tsundere clichés who always right in her beliefs, we have most of those in Superman and he's unique for it because it makes him a example for people even like Lois even if she's usually a white knight. She was humbled and made a mistake, about fucking time she gets to be a human being who screws up.

How is it possible for someone to so totally misunderstand a character? Lois has done plenty of stupid things, selfish things, rude things, disrespectful things, unethical things, and even immortal things for both good and bad reasons.

[ComA]

Journalist or not it wasn't her decision to make. You have to wonder if she did it for a personal reason than a professional reason?

[Cipher]

Didn't comment about this one. Thought it was okay aside from some laughably bad social media comments, it's like if the author has never spend time on the internet.

I usually cringe when those elements come up, not because I don't like seeing them -- it's actually important to include them to avoid feeling like an unintentional period piece -- but because they're usually so poorly handled. I thought this one was well-done though.

"Most. Epic. Fight. Ever" may have been a little on-the-nose, but it's completely believable a 30-second cellphone recording would wind up on YouTube. The xenophobic tweet seemed, unfortunately, on point, and the "Superman wrecked my favorite pho truck" got a snicker out of me and seemed quite realistic as well.

Journalist or not it wasn't her decision to make.

Journalists have to make decisions that "aren't theirs" all the time, especially when public figures are involved.

[ComA]

I usually cringe when those elements come up, not because I don't like seeing them -- it's actually important to include them to avoid feeling like an unintentional period piece -- but because they're usually so poorly handled. I thought this one was well-done though.

"Most. Epic. Fight. Ever" may have been a little on-the-nose, but it's completely believable a 30-second cellphone recording would wind up on YouTube. The xenophobic tweet seemed, unfortunately, on point, and the "Superman wrecked my favorite pho truck" got a snicker out of me and seemed quite realistic as well.


Journalists have to make decisions that "aren't theirs" all the time, especially when public figures are involved.

Lois and Clark had a friendship, she should have ask him first before revealing anything about him. Instead she go behind his back and reveal he was superman.

[Cipher]

Lois and Clark had a friendship, she should have ask him first before revealing anything about him. Instead she go behind his back and reveal he was superman.

We don't know that yet. In fact, I'd be shocked if, from a journalistic perspective, she didn't ask him first. That wouldn't be due diligence.

It just means she ran the story even though he didn't want her to.

[K. Jones]

The story's called "TRUTH" and is obviously about Truth, Justice and the American Way - specifically, I have to imagine, the First Amendment, specifically again referring to Freedom of the Press. It's a story that's been begging to be told, and hinted at around the fringes and in "future situations" and "fakeouts" and "alternate earths" and whatever way except for mainstream continuity for years. I'm really glad to see it being done now, here, in the New DCU, because it means we get to have Greg Pak be part of it, and we get to double (or even triple) down on Grant Morrison's socialist crusader themes from Action 1-18.

I don't think for a second Public Clark Kent is the wave of the future of new Superman stories - like, they don't write this kind of thing without a backdoor Mephisto hanging around to mindwipe the planet. Of course that might not be until the next Crisis or something (hey, he dates Wonder Woman now, and she's got a mostly public ID).

I'm down for this. I thought "Exposed" was a good little primer. And hey! Jimmy Olsen actually used as Superman's pal, a savvy dude, and an interesting person in his own right. And genuine conflict between the now more BFF, less LUV4EVA Clark and Lois. And an actual damn story about JOURNALISM in a Superman comic?

It's like heaven for me. I've wanted this angle for years.

[Deniz Camp]

I usually cringe when those elements come up, not because I don't like seeing them -- it's actually important to include them to avoid feeling like an unintentional period piece -- but because they're usually so poorly handled. I thought this one was well-done though.

"Most. Epic. Fight. Ever" may have been a little on-the-nose, but it's completely believable a 30-second cellphone recording would wind up on YouTube. The xenophobic tweet seemed, unfortunately, on point, and the "Superman wrecked my favorite pho truck" got a snicker out of me and seemed quite realistic as well.

Agreed. Most of the time, when I see these sorts of complaints leveled against inclusions of internet commentary I think it comes from a defensive place. I'm on the internet quite a bit, and they rung very true to me.

But then, there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. Comment sections generally draw all kinds of people. Which is, I think, the entire point of the internet, when formulated for/transitioned to popular consumption.

[Auguste Dupin]

Lois didn't cause this to happen. If Lois is doing this for the right reasons (e.g. to protect Clark, to protect the world, to fulfill her ethical obligation as a journalist), then she didn't cause this to happen. She can feel sorry for him, she can feel empathy for what he is going through, and she can feel obligated to do whatever she can to make the blowback as painless as possible. But if she did the best she could and she did it for the right reasons, then she shouldn't apologize. She shouldn't feel guilty for doing her best or for doing the right thing. She can feel bad that it happened, but guilt implies culpability. Lois is not responsible for what is happening to Clark if she did the right thing for the right reasons, and if she did it the right way. The "Divergence" comic, however, clearly suggests otherwise. It suggests Lois feels guilty because she did something she had no right to do, and she did the thing she had no right to do in a way that did not minimize harm. In other words, this issue implies Lois did do something wrong. I am not okay with that.

Perhaps in the Mickey Mouse Club. In the world of believable human emotions, however, there are so many counter examples (in particular when it comes to friends and closed ones) to this it's not even funny. Again, I have been there. Lois feeling like she did the wrong thing despite having (possibly) done the best thing she could have done under those circumsances? Painfully accurate. In that regard, the issue only implies that she feels guilty about what happens, which means nothing about how objectively at fault she is.

[Blacksun]

If lois didn't made anything wrong she wouldn't apologize. Writer was just having his cake and eating it, just to let open that Lois did something wrong. pretty terrible thing to do with her

dialogue could had went: "I'm sorry for what is going on with you. but I did what I had to do...hope one day you will see the truth"

I also would had like if she confronted him, something hotter and not cold like apologizing and offering money.

[misslane]

Perhaps in the Mickey Mouse Club. In the world of believable human emotions, however, there are so many counter examples (in particular when it comes to friends and closed ones) to this it's not even funny. Again, I have been there. Lois feeling like she did the wrong thing despite having (possibly) done the best thing she could have done under those circumsances? Painfully accurate. In that regard, the issue only implies that she feels guilty about what happens, which means nothing about how objectively at fault she is.

That's not what I'm saying, though. I'm saying her feelings of guilt imply that she also feels culpable, responsible, at fault, and any other synonym for what happened to Clark. If Lois did the right thing the right way for the right reasons, then she has no reason to feel any of those things. She can feel terrible that circumstances necessitated her actions, and she can sympathize with his predicament. But I cannot understand why she would feel guilt for doing the best she can in a bad situation. Lois simply is not the sort of person who would second guess herself like that. And if the issue truly wanted to suggest that Lois's guilt was misplaced, then I would have expected Clark's attitude and response to her to be quite different. He would have been much more sympathetic and reassuring with her. Clark's cold response suggests to me that at the very least he believes there's some validity to Lois's feelings of guilt, which means she either is guilty or the story depends on ambiguous evidence of her guilt.

[Cipher]

If lois didn't made anything wrong she wouldn't apologize.

That ... that's not really how, like, human sentiment works.

[misslane]

That ... that's not really how, like, human sentiment works.

You don't understand. Lois is a great friend and a great journalist, but one of her enduring traits is her self-confidence. It's one of her personality traits that is both refreshing and frustrating. Some people would apologize for something regardless if an apology was needed or not. Lois Lane, however, is not that kind of person. She's not the kind of person who would second guess or back down from a decision she genuinely believed was the right thing to do. So, I could perhaps see her thinking out loud that she could have found another way, but I can't accept that Lois would say she "had no right" to do what she did unless it was actually true.