Divergence 1: Exposed (FCBD) SPOILERS

[Deniz Camp]

We really SHOULD praise the forward-facing nature of this new Superman direction, if nothing else.

For the first time in a long time we're seeing something genuinely new and different tried with the character and his status quo. Even Morrison's Action Comics existed within the very narrow confines of the Superman mythology. Even if this is undone - as it almost certainly will be - in a year or two years' time, really exploring what an 'out' Superman/Clark Kent means is new territory for the character, and that is exciting.

[DochaDocha]

The Divergence story is not a preview. It is its own standalone story. The only place you can read it is FCBD Divergence 1 (Until the trade I guess?)

Ah, thanks.

[Flash Gordon]

We really SHOULD praise the forward-facing nature of this new Superman direction, if nothing else.

For the first time in a long time we're seeing something genuinely new and different tried with the character and his status quo. Even Morrison's Action Comics existed within the very narrow confines of the Superman mythology. Even if this is undone - as it almost certainly will be - in a year or two years' time, really exploring what an 'out' Superman/Clark Kent means is new territory for the character, and that is exciting.

Yeah, agreed. I'm excited to see where this goes.

Though I wish it wasn't Lois Lane who "outed" him.

[Superlad93]

We really SHOULD praise the forward-facing nature of this new Superman direction, if nothing else.

For the first time in a long time we're seeing something genuinely new and different tried with the character and his status quo. Even Morrison's Action Comics existed within the very narrow confines of the Superman mythology. Even if this is undone - as it almost certainly will be - in a year or two years' time, really exploring what an 'out' Superman/Clark Kent means is new territory for the character, and that is exciting.

Absolutely. The arc has my respect for that idea alone. Even the art seems to be giving off a new vibe to it. Kuder's been drawing Superman for a while, but from that one image (along with the covers) it really feels new and fresh. I can tell you that I've never seen Superman in quite the same light as the posted picture above.

Ever since I learned what the truth story line meant, I've become more convinced that it's the perfect climate to give Yang his start.

[Superlad93]

Though I wish it wasn't Lois Lane who "outed" him.

I maintain that this is the perfect idea, for better or worse. I'm really into it.

[Deniz Camp]

Yeah, agreed. I'm excited to see where this goes.

Though I wish it wasn't Lois Lane who "outed" him.

Like Superlad, I like that it was her.

I get why people are against it, but I'd like to see stronger interactions between Superman and his supporting cast in general. I think they're strong, identifiable, and yet rarely used in comparison to that of Batman. Making Lois Lane the one who did this - for whatever reason - allows for a lot of potential to explore their relationship as it suffers the self-generated strain of this event. It also side-steps the inevitably predictable (not to mention well-chronicled/oft re-imagined) interaction of her simply finding out and makes her a more powerful figure with agency in that moment of discovery, not just a bystander or a 'sufferer', so to speak.

In many ways it's an ironic refutation of the obvious criticism that by getting rid of the Clark persona you get rid of his supporting cast. From what we've seen thus far, Jimmy and Lois haven't been this vital in the actual Superman comics in a long, long time (and even when they have, historically, been featured, it's been apart from Superman, doing their own thing...little in the way of actual development of the Superman/Clark/Lois or Superman/Clark/Jimmy relationships)

[Cipher]

I maintain that this is the perfect idea, for better or worse. I'm really into it.

Ditto. I think it makes sense for her character, and in a strange way it brings them closer together. They've had a constant friend-rival relationship in the New 52, and this, for better or worse, seems like it will have to push them through that into something else.

EDIT -- Beaten by seconds by Deniz Camp, but agreed with that whole post as well. We're finally getting to see the main cast bounce against and affect each other's arcs in interesting ways.

[Sacred Knight]

So the question now becomes this. When is Clark going to need to drown a bit of his sorrows, and step into a placed called the Ace O' Clubs?

[Flash Gordon]

Like Superlad, I like that it was her.

I get why people are against it, but I'd like to see stronger interactions between Superman and his supporting cast in general. I think they're strong, identifiable, and yet rarely used in comparison to that of Batman. Making Lois Lane the one who did this - for whatever reason - allows for a lot of potential to explore their relationship as it suffers the self-generated strain of this event. It also side-steps the inevitably predictable (not to mention well-chronicled/oft re-imagined) interaction of her simply finding out and makes her a more powerful figure with agency in that moment of discovery, not just a bystander or a 'sufferer', so to speak.

In many ways it's an ironic refutation of the obvious criticism that by getting rid of the Clark persona you get rid of his supporting cast. From what we've seen thus far, Jimmy and Lois haven't been this vital in the actual Superman comics in a long, long time (and even when they have, historically, been featured, it's been apart from Superman, doing their own thing...little in the way of actual development of the Superman/Clark/Lois or Superman/Clark/Jimmy relationships)

I get that. I liked Jimmy finding out the way he did. I've liked all their interactions thus far. Morrison made Jimmy a very important character in Clark's life and I feel like no one else picked that up. Lobdell tried but sorta failed in his execution of it, like most of his run. This at least puts Jimmy front and center as Clark's number one ally.

I'm just not so sure how Lois and Clark would ever be together after this, for me that's an important part of the mythos. Surely Kal-El is an understanding guy, but this is kind of a severe event. Again, I'll wait and see how it plays out and what Lois's reasoning is, but it's still a hard pill to swallow for me.

[Sacred Knight]

Well they're certainly not going to be getting together any time soon or any time in the foreseeable future, but they weren't going to be doing that anyway. The time when they'll actually consider a romance with these incarnations of the characters is so far off the radar right now, whenever it does become a possibility again, this story will be long over and resolved.

[misslane]

I maintain that this is the perfect idea, for better or worse. I'm really into it.

Why are you into it?

I get why people are against it, but I'd like to see stronger interactions between Superman and his supporting cast in general. I think they're strong, identifiable, and yet rarely used in comparison to that of Batman. Making Lois Lane the one who did this - for whatever reason - allows for a lot of potential to explore their relationship as it suffers the self-generated strain of this event. It also side-steps the inevitably predictable (not to mention well-chronicled/oft re-imagined) interaction of her simply finding out and makes her a more powerful figure with agency in that moment of discovery, not just a bystander or a 'sufferer', so to speak.

Huh? When was the last time Lois was a bystander or a sufferer at the moment she found out Clark's secret? Your rationale and support for this storyline hinges on your optimistic belief that this will ultimately be the thing that brings Clark and Lois closer together. What evidence do we have to support such high hopes?

In many ways it's an ironic refutation of the obvious criticism that by getting rid of the Clark persona you get rid of his supporting cast. From what we've seen thus far, Jimmy and Lois haven't been this vital in the actual Superman comics in a long, long time (and even when they have, historically, been featured, it's been apart from Superman, doing their own thing...little in the way of actual development of the Superman/Clark/Lois or Superman/Clark/Jimmy relationships)

This may be true of the New 52 and the few years before the reboot, but that's less than a decade. I guess that's a "long, long time," but I can't see why Lois had to be the one to out Superman in order to generate this particularly fertile context. Someone else could have leaked the story, and Lois and Clark could have been drawn together because she became a vital partner in shaping his post-reveal narrative. Basically, you get all the story benefits without the questionable professional ethics and personal betrayals.

Ditto. I think it makes sense for her character, and in a strange way it brings them closer together. They've had a constant friend-rival relationship in the New 52, and this, for better or worse, seems like it will have to push them through that into something else.

How will this push them into something else? What is this something else? I can't see how this makes sense for Lois as a character. When the topic was touched on before during Lobdell's Psi-War arc, it was used to suggest that Lois was crazy, not herself, and being transformed into a puppet for a supervillain. Now it's suddenly totally in character? Since when?

Well they're certainly not going to be getting together any time soon or any time in the foreseeable future, but they weren't going to be doing that anyway. The time when they'll actually consider a romance with these incarnations of the characters is so far off the radar right now, whenever it does become a possibility again, this story will be long over and resolved.

That presumes the secret remains out after all is said and done.

[manofsteel1979]

So the question now becomes this. When is Clark going to need to drown a bit of his sorrows, and step into a placed called the Ace O' Clubs?

If it results in the return of Bibbo somehow...then it may almost make up for any trepidation i have. Almost.

[Deniz Camp]

I get that. I liked Jimmy finding out the way he did. I've liked all their interactions thus far. Morrison made Jimmy a very important character in Clark's life and I feel like no one else picked that up. Lobdell tried but sorta failed in his execution of it, like most of his run. This at least puts Jimmy front and center as Clark's number one ally.

I think Morrison wanted to, and tried to, but between establishing the character of Superman/Clark, and exploring all the various elements of that mythology, AND the demands of developing his plot(s) he didn't really have much time to cement the Superman/Clark/Jimmy dynamic the way he would have liked to, or as he might have over a 40+ issue run on the character (or whatever).

Morrison is a master of economy and certainly one got the sense for their relationship being very tight, but there just wasn't time and room to really demonstrate it fully. I think it's even been discussed on this boards, that Morrison said some stuff in interviews that never made it onto the page.

[Deniz Camp]

Why are you into it?



Huh? When was the last time Lois was a bystander or a sufferer at the moment she found out Clark's secret?

Every other time she's found out and been shocked but, ultimately does nothing about it, and nothing significant comes out of it at all.

Your rationale and support for this storyline hinges on your optimistic belief that this will ultimately be the thing that brings Clark and Lois closer together.

No, it doesn't. Only that it will force them into interaction and conflict, which tends to be the foundation of drama in western literature.

What evidence do we have to support such high hopes?

For one, you're working from an incorrect starting point (limited, it seems, by your own needs). For another, I wouldn't need any 'evidence' in support of 'hope'. Hope exists independent of evidence. Which is why it's so often associated with faith.

I have faith in Yang's deft touch with character, his consideration for emotional stakes and the diverse, subtle emotions of characters in love and struggling with their sense of identity, their sense of duty. That faith is based upon the evidence of his previous work, in BOXERS & SAINTS, and AMERICAN BORN CHINESE.

But even if I didn't have any of that, it wouldn't matter. As far as I'm concerned the Lois/Superman romance can be forever shattered, irrevocably. Lois can be completely in the wrong. Superman can be uncompletely unjustified, unreasonably petulant. If the stories are good I'm good with it.

From your various posts over the years, my sense is that this is where we differ fundamentally. You need something to be born out for this story to have value. I'm willing for the story's value to justify the characters' choices.

This may be true of the New 52 and the few years before the reboot, but that's less than a decade. I guess that's a "long, long time," but I can't see why Lois had to be the one to out Superman in order to generate this particularly fertile context. Someone else could have leaked the story, and Lois and Clark could have been drawn together because she became a vital partner in shaping his post-reveal narrative. Basically, you get all the story benefits without the questionable professional ethics and personal betrayals.

Then you don't get the story benefits. Having Lois as a genuine actor, effecting the story rather than simply being affected by an exogenous force, makes her a greater factor in the narrative. Everything Superman does, and goes through, is now an outgrowth of their relationship, their interaction. Whether she's in the stories or not, their very existence comments on their relationship.



I'm going to leave off with you from here, because I can already see where you're coming from, and I don't think discussion with you is going to be particularly fruitful.

[Cipher]

How will this push them into something else? What is this something else? I can't see how this makes sense for Lois as a character. When the topic was touched on before during Lobdell's Psi-War arc, it was used to suggest that Lois was crazy, not herself, and being transformed into a puppet for a supervillain. Now it's suddenly totally in character? Since when?

Deniz has already, and eloquently, expressed most of my thoughts on the matter, but it essentially forces them out of their status quo into open conflict and, eventually, resolution. Love has often been born out of strife, out of rivalry, difficult decisions, etc. It brings Lois back into the story as an actor.

Also, that was your reading on the line in Lobdell's "Psi-War"? I never got that vibe at all. It seemed like a natural outcome to me; Lois was fairly lucid at the time.

I'm not sure I can do anything to bring you around -- I think it's in character, will be effectively handled, and will, after whatever conflict comes out of it, do right by its characters. You seem quite concerned by Lois' role in it, but not in anyway I can effectively debate against, or even fully understand.