First look at new SuperWoman Status Quo+Preview of #9

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Lana and John will be coming to blows in future issues, and issue 8 established Lana doesn't actually love him. If they were married, it's leading to another messy divorce for her

That's actually not what was going on in issue #8.

Jimenez's last issue was highly metatextual. When Lana speaks of not wanting to love John the same he loves her, and asks why Clark didn't love her the same way, it's a critique of Lana's treatment in the Superman mythos throughout the eras and across media. Lana's historically been written as someone that's been in love with Clark. Even when people take the character in a different direction, have her marry someone else, eventually it will come back to her being in love with Clark, like in Austen's run in the 2000s. Or when Lana moved on from Superman prior to COIE, when the Universe was rebooted, she was written as his high school love interest and becoming obsessed with in adulthood.

So when Lana bemoans not loving Steel the same way, she's not speaking literally in terms of her current incarnation, she's speaking about her character in its entirety. She can't love Steel the same way, because DC and popular culture won't let her. Eventually, whether it's another reboot, an out of continuity comic, or ten years later in the current continuity, someone will reintroduce the idea of Lana still, and always having been in love with Clark. Culturally, she'll always be remembered as someone that is in love with Clark.

Steel doesn't have that problem, because he hasn't had this romantic history with an iconic character the way Lana has, who was introduced as a Superboy love interest.

But despite all that, Jimenez still take an optimistic look at the character, and says she can escape those trappings and be remembered as more than Clark's love interest. So he wasn't trying to say the Lana and Steel relationship was going to end soon. He wasn't laying the groundwork for that.

Of course, this could still be an Animal Man situation, where Grant Morrison said the writer after him might have Animal Man eat mean to shock readers, and then in the next issue by the new writer, Animal Man chomps into a horse.

[Miles To Go]

That's actually not what was going on in issue #8.

Jimenez's last issue was highly metatextual. When Lana speaks of not wanting to love John the same he loves her, and asks why Clark didn't love her the same way, it's a critique of Lana's role in the Superman mythos throughout the eras. Lana's historically been written as someone that's been in love with Clark. Even when people take the character in a different direction, have her marry someone else, eventually it will come back to her being in love with Clark, like in Austen's run in the 2000s.

So when Lana bemoans not loving Steel the same way, she's not speaking literally in terms her current incarnation, she's speaking about her character in its entirety. She can't love Steel the same way, because DC and popular culture won't let her. Eventually, whether it's another reboot, an out of continuity comic, or ten years later in the current continuity, someone will introduce the idea of Lana still, and always having being in love with Clark. Culturally, she's always be remembered as someone that is in love with Clark.

Steel doesn't have that problem, because he hasn't had this romantic history with an iconic character the way Lana has, who was introduced as a Superboy love interest.

But despite all that, Jimenez still take an optimistic look at the character, and says she can escape those trappings and be remembered as more than Clark's love interest. So he wasn't trying to say the Lana and Steel relationship was going to end soon. He wasn't laying the groundwork for that.

Of course, this could still be an Animal Man situation, where Grant Morrison said the writer after him might have Animal Man eat mean to shock readers, and then in the next issue by the new writer, Animal Man chomps into a horse.

I see your point, the metatextual thing is something I picked up on, no question, but I still feel like it's something the character genuinely feels about herself...she may have taught Clark to love, but she never learned to love in quite the same way beyond him. It's a character flaw that in another life pre-flashpoint, brought her marriage to ruin (and let's face it, she only married Pete after she got a fright from Bizzaro attacking her home), so the non-committal aspects have already been proven by her previous history. time will tell if she decides to fight against the universe's design for her and redefine herself. Personally I'd never have separated her from Pete to begin with, and she needs her son back.

[Kuwagaton]

Of course, this could still be an Animal Man situation, where Grant Morrison said the writer after him might have Animal Man eat mean to shock readers, and then in the next issue by the new writer, Animal Man chomps into a horse.

ROFL, I love Milligan. Valiant's Britannia is out in trade for $9.99, people.

I wish Superman Reborn happened before Rebirth. Now we're already 8 issues in and the titles all have to readjust to the new continuity right in the middle of their storylines?
The first Rebirth arcs where Superdad appeared all made a big deal about him not being the Superman everybody new (see JL and Trinity) and now suddenly he will be. So many Rebirth arcs were in continuity for basically just 2 months after they ended. In Superwoman's case, even less.

It's part of the game. But imo, I don't think any title in the line has suffered. This issue looks more appealing to me than the series has in a while.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

There's definitely an element of that, but as per Jimenez's run, I think Lana does indeed love John, just in a different way than he loves her.

[spirit2011]

I see your point, the metatextual thing is something I picked up on, no question, but I still feel like it's something the character genuinely feels about herself...she may have taught Clark to love, but she never learned to love in quite the same way beyond him. It's a character flaw that in another life pre-flashpoint, brought her marriage to ruin (and let's face it, she only married Pete after she got a fright from Bizzaro attacking her home), so the non-committal aspects have already been proven by her previous history. time will tell if she decides to fight against the universe's design for her and redefine herself. Personally I'd never have separated her from Pete to begin with, and she needs her son back.

That line that she taught Clark how to love was so cringeworth

[PyroTwilight]

Ah geeze. We're really doing this new timeline thing...

Sigh. Alright. Here we go...

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

ROFL, I love Milligan. Valiant's Britannia is out in trade for $9.99, people.

I had no idea that it was Milligan that followed Morrison on Animal Man, until you told me.

Animal Man was one of the first comics I read, so at the time I only knew of a few writers by name. Morrison, Johns, Miller, Bendis, Millar, Moore, and Gaiman were really all I knew at the time. All this time I thought the person that penned the 2nd run on Animal Man was some obscure writer that never did any work again.

[Dataweaver]

Based on the covers I'm seeing for upcoming issues of Superwoman, I'm guessing that Lana is going to be outfitted in a supersuit that replicates her lost powers.