Did DC deal Lois Lane a lousy hand?

[Agent Z]

Those story lines were offensive, but I think we may disagree on who they offend: they offend Lois Lane herself. They are offensive to Lois Lane because it's offensive for writers to write a female character like Lois as obsessed with marriage because that was the prevailing cultural attitude towards adult women. Adult women were to be wives and mothers; any time as a career woman would only be used as a stepping stone to matrimony. It's offensive to Lois Lane because she didn't ask to be written by sexist men existing in a sexist culture who could find no other use for her except applying her natural aptitude for investigation toward the only goal considered worthwhile for women of her time. What is truly offensive is the fact that Lois Lane is the one who continues to shoulder the blame and the shame rather than the men and the culture that wrote her.

I never suggested it wasn't offensive to women, though maybe I should have put that in my post. But yes I agree with what you say.

[Tuck]

Silver Age Superman had super hypnosis.




Of course:

[MajorHoy]

Silver Age Superman had super hypnosis.

Not exactly . . . if that story you're referring to was from Superman #330 from 1978



then I believe that would technically fall more into the "Bronze Age".

And was it just that he used "Super-Hypnosis", or was it also that by using the glass from his rocket ship to make the lenses in his glasses that also triggered it?

[Tuck]

And was it just that he used "Super-Hypnosis", or was it also that by using the glass from his rocket ship to make the lenses in his glasses that also triggered it?

I think they've said it both ways at different times.

It kind of cracks me up that the glasses are seen as a terrible disguise, but no one questions the efficacy of a domino mask.

[Jim Kelly]

The story in SUPERMAN 330 had Clark Kent suddenly deciding that his glasses gimmick made no sense and then discovering that his glasses were hypnotizing people. It's best thought of as one-off. E. Nelson Bridwell shortly after this said in THE COMIC READER that it was invalid. And it was never used again.

I liked the story at the time--because it was fun and entertaining--but I give it no weight. You don't have to think about it too much before you realize that it doesn't work.

As far as stories being offensive now when we look at them with 20/20 hindsight, that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. We're expecting the past to conform to our worldview now and we're expecting economics to work according to the present market rather than the conditions at the time.

I try to put myself in the head-space of the person reading the comic book at the time it was published. I can also compartmentalize my thoughts and see how it looks from a perspective far removed from those times--but that's not as helpful. To understand why a comic was the way it was, you have to know the situation under which it was produced.

You can't change history and you have to recognize that what someone likes at one period in time may not be what you like now. If we subjected comics from the '90s or the '00s to the same hindsight, we could pass judgement on them, as well. But really, if you were an editor at the time and you saw that something sold well in the market wouldn't you try to do more of that?

[DochaDocha]

I agree with Jim Kelly 125%. It's more than 100% because I'm assuming I'll agree with the next thing he posts, too.

[misslane]

I think there's a difference between appreciating the historical context of some characterization and validating it or excusing it by giving it weight in the present, particularly more weight than subsequent characterization. So when people judge Lois Lane to be generally terrible, and use examples that are derived primarily from a bygone and flawed era, it doesn't seem fair: one should be able to give Lois the credit for evolving away from the unappealing aspects of those eras. If someone can provide 5 counterexamples for every single point made by someone else, then it seems pointless to complain about DC dealing Lois a lousy hand when one can look at the state of her character in various media over even a decade-long time period and conclude that on the whole she's doing okay--better in some places than others and better in those areas that are being criticized--but okay overall. If the "popular culture" still holds onto the bad aspects of the past instead of appreciating the improvements of the present, the problem isn't with DC, it's with the popular culture. In this case, a popular culture that hasn't overcome sexism just yet.

The way I see it, and the way I feel based on that perception, is that I am disappointed in the creators of the past who were a product of their contemporary culture or who maybe didn't challenge that culture enough in their work, because those elements came together to produce what should be viewed as offensive comics today. No amount of historical moral relativity can erase that slavery was offensive and slave owners were benefiting from a corrupt and immoral system, and no amount of historical relativity can erase the sexism in earlier takes on Lois. Since those individuals aren't still actively influencing Lois' characterization, and since Lois has benefited from more progressive takes, it seems wrong to let the past influence her definition in the present or to not give her credit for all the ways she is thriving today despite the alleged burden of her past.

In other words, I may be able to offer those who've offended some forgiveness for offending when they didn't know better given the time and culture in which they lived; yet still call their work sexist and offensive to my more enlightened and modern sensibilities. However, what I cannot forgive is people in the present who use offensive comics to dismiss and bash a character who has evolved beyond that, allowing those offensive aspects of those older comics to be kept alive instead of letting them rest in peace. If we can forgive the creators of the past and their comics because we hold that they didn't exactly know better, then we should also forgive Lois and allow her to be defined by how she's progressed and how she continues to thrive in several areas.

We are in charge of contemporary popular culture--not the faded creators and comics of the past--and we should acknowledge and advance the new Lois paradigm instead of letting her past define her so much in the present.

[Carabas]

True, but he doesn't always interract with both sides, and when does, it's not always in a very substantial manner.
That, and it's less "funny" with the archnemesis than with the love interest.

His own supercomputer pointed to him, out with scientific evidence, that Clark Kent is Superman, and Luthar was just "Nah, that's impossible, must be a bug."

[MythicBrawn]

I always thought Lois, Jimmy, and Perry should have figured it out on their own. They interacted with both Clark and Superman on the regular for them not to put it together. Lois, being smart and an investigative reporter, Pulitzer prize winner, should have figured it out almost immediately. Superman shows up, Clark's nowhere around and vice versa. This was well before Clark started using the robots and shapechangers to throw people off.

[Auguste Dupin]

His own supercomputer pointed to him, out with scientific evidence, that Clark Kent is Superman, and Luthar was just "Nah, that's impossible, must be a bug."

Heh, I never said I thought it made sense(especially not that storyline, which I hate).

[DrNewGod]

I'll probably come back to discuss the rest of your post later, but these two particular points are pretty contradictory. Lois can't be both constantly trying to prove, for example, that Clark Kent is Superman while at the same time being the same person who is too dense to see past the glasses.

Yeah, I know some of the examples I put up were contradictory. Kind of cringed while typing it, waiting for the axe to fall. They were each meant to be examples of things I've read people say about Lois Lane on CBR forums over the years. Still, I'd suggest that some of that has saturated the broader public consciousness.

I'm actually a Lois fan. She's a humanizing element for Superman, something that connects him to the rest of us. When written at her best, she's brash and pushy and driven, and both insecure and conceited, and yet, ethical and brave and decent. In some ways, I think she serves as part of the reason that Superman wants to be the better man that he is.

[DrNewGod]

His own supercomputer pointed to him, out with scientific evidence, that Clark Kent is Superman, and Luthar was just "Nah, that's impossible, must be a bug."

Heh, I never said I thought it made sense(especially not that storyline, which I hate).

I actually liked that story, even tho it could have been handled better. I liked the idea that, for all of his genius, Luthor could not make himself believe a being with power of that level would stoop to living so ordinary an existence. And since, and Lex' eyes, his judgement could not be flawed, the computer's conclusion had to be wrong.

[Auguste Dupin]

But it was a relatively small period of time between the Byrne reboot and when Clark revealed his true identity to Lois. So in the post-Crisis era, I'm not convinced this would have ever been such an irritant to comic book fandom. We're talking almost thirty years. For most of that time, Lois has known or strongly suspected Superman and Clark Kent were one and the same.

That's the thing, though. HE had to reveal it to her. She almost got married to the guy and never figured out it was the man she had fantasies about for years, but with a pair of glasses. I'm sorry, but you can't pretend that you don't see why some people think it doesn't make her look all that bright.

In the early days of Superman even up to the '60s, Superman was calling her Miss Lane. There was a cold formality to their relationship. I grant that this was never consistent. Sometimes Superman would be taking her off to an exotic jungle to romance her. And then in the next story it was like he barely knew her. Very early in my reading, I decided that every Superman story existed in its own bubble of reality and you couldn't expect anything in one story to have an influence on the next story.

I think it also comes from the fact that the iconic version of Superman is the Silver Age. And they were clearly good friends there. I mean, he had an entire section of the Fortress dedicated to her, and she knew it. Her own comic was called "Superman's Girlfriend". Frankly, the basic status quo at that time was that she was his love interest.

The secret identity is such a big topic in itself. It's come up many times on this board. My opinion is that it was always a mistake to admit that into the reality of the character. No one ever should have looked at Superman and seen that he looks like Clark Kent. They used this as a springboard for many plots--so I can't fault them for that. But once this becomes a reality in Superman's world then all of the questions follow from that.

I think the reality of the situation is that admitting into the reality of the character isn't a choice anyone made by anyone so much as a result of the evolution of the readership. We can complain all we want, but that's the hand we're given. I mean, let's be real: my 11 year old nephew doesn't buy the glasses as a disguise.And he's 11.

My stance is that Superman is like Odysseus and the newly risen Jesus who are not recognized by their closest friends when they first return to them. And in fact this was a whole theme in Greek drama. In most of the plays, there's a recognition scene where a brother, sister or friend suddenly has their eyes opened to the truth and recognize that Iphigenia, Orestes or whoever is in fact that and not this stranger that they thought they were.

If my memories are correct, Odysseus' disguise was somewhat more elaborate than a pair of glasses. That, and the charade didn't last for years.

That something so deep exists in the Superman story is a profoundly good thing. And you just have to go with it. But when the stories keep screwing around with this idea, then it weakens the fabric of the illusion.

I think the fabric of the illusion is weakening on its own. I mean, it's not even a comic book thing. Even cartoons for children are getting more sophisticate (do you even imagine Avatar being done in the 80's?). Hell, One Piece, a manga very popular with children, made fun of the concept by having one of his characters try to disguise himself as a superhero, only for every one to recognise him immediately becase it was obviously him (the only two people who didn't recognise him are clearly characterised as idiots). His costume was more believable than Superman's . Stuff that were acceptable when we were young (and I suspect we're not even close to the same age) isn't necessarily the case now.
Really, I just think tastes are changing and that it has nothing to do with the comic book fans.

But I also think fandom is fickle when it moans about this. On the one hand, Lois is a terrible person because she suspects that Superman is Clark and tries to prove it. On the other hand, Lois is a stupid person because she doesn't know Superman is Clark. Really, fandom just has it in for Lois and will use any faulty logic to say something bad about her.

Seems to me you're ignoring the point made. Logically, she shouldn't even have to try to prove it, because he's hiding behind a pair of glasses. That's where the moaning and jokes come from. The very fact she has to prove it means she's "stupid" for these people, because they don't accept thatit could work as a disguise.

For most of the classic period where Lois may have had reason to believe Clark is Superman, the Weisinger machinery applied. She suspected it almost every month in one story and often tried to prove her case and Superman always came up with a scheme to prove that he and Clark were two different people. There were robots, exact doubles, allies--a whole long list of ways that Superman showed Lois time and again that she was wrong. Why would she or anyone try to prove this, when Superman had proven that he wasn't Clark Kent on countless occasions?

Do you think that you could be fooled by your best friend with a pair of glasses, even if he had robots of him without said glasses?

And this is in a world where eveyone else seems to have an exact double. Lois Lane had at least one doppelganger. So the fact that Clark and Superman may look the same, somewhat, would not be remarkable to anyone in that world where doubles are common.

That was true in the 50's, and even then, they were all Kandorians (...I think). But you really think people who don't accept the concept of the Superman/Clark Kent duality know about that? You really think they would find that explanation any more acceptable?

[Auguste Dupin]

I actually liked that story, even tho it could have been handled better. I liked the idea that, for all of his genius, Luthor could not make himself believe a being with power of that level would stoop to living so ordinary an existence. And since, and Lex' eyes, his judgement could not be flawed, the computer's conclusion had to be wrong.

I think having the whole duality stare him in the face like that without him putting two and two together goes way overboard to make that point, and that it makes what should be a demonstration of how he sees the world and his archnemesis look like plain old idiocy.

[Jim Kelly]

The first story where it dawned on Lois that Superman must be Clark Kent was "Man or Superman?" in SUPERMAN NO. 17 (July-August '42). It's a great little story, you should all read it. It's been reprinted a few times.

The glasses are not an effective disguise. Clark and Superman do look alike. That's the point. For the reader it is obvious, yet no one in the world of Superman can see it. That's the point! I think that Byrne story where Luthor's computer shows him that Superman is Clark Kent, yet he can't believe it, is one of the best things that Byrne came up with.

It's a psychological truth. We often should see things that are right in front of us, but we don't. I don't think it needs more explanation than that. The comics were exciting for kids for all those decades because the readers were in on the secret. They knew that Clark was Superman--and he would wink at them from the comic book--and they could feel superior to the characters in the story, because they could see what the characters couldn't see. That's the nature of irony and why it's an oft-used device in drama.