Possibility of Super Marriage without Crisis on Infinite Earths.

[CharlesInCharge]

If Superman had never been rebooted in 1986, could you have seen the Earth One incarnation marrying Lois, or even someone else? It's often been said about this version of the character, that he preferred to abstain from romantic relationships and find happiness in his mission of helping people, hence why he kept rejecting Lois and Lana. However, there are a handful of stories which don't mesh with that notion. (See the link below)


http://captaincomics.ning.com/profil...n-s-lost-loves



So what do you think, could you have seen him settling down, like the post crisis version did in the 90s? or would DC have kept him single and unattached?

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

If I'm not mistaken, John Byrne was willing to do his Superman run even without the character getting a reboot, so whether COIE happened on not, the character would have still been heading in the direction that would lead to him and Lois getting married.

Byrne's characterization and the take on the Superverse would have still happened, albeit with some differences due to the existing continuity, which would have led to Lois & Clark still coming about, so even if different teams took over the Super line than the ones that did after Byrne left, the marriage happening on the TV show would have still resulted in the couple getting married in the comics.

[Jim Kelly]

They don't mention Lyrica Lloyd. That was one of the earliest stories I read--in the first isue of SUPERMAN that I ever bought, No. 196 (May'67). It's actually a rehash of a story in the '40s that appeared in the daily comic strip. When I read this story I thought that it had changed Superman forever and I thought the next Superman comics would reflect this change in him. But it was as if that story never happened as no other comics ever addressed the romantic upheaval in Clark's life. And that taught me an early lesson about Superman continuity. Most stories have no impact on his life and the Man of Steel always goes back to his status quo.

But, as I never forgot about Lyrica Lloyd and always mourn the passing of this great actress from the 1960s, maybe that tragedy did affect Clark. Maybe he never mentions her, because it's a wound that cuts too deep. He was willing to throw it all away for her, in a way he never did for Lois or Lana. So maybe she was his greatest love and the reason he never marries anyone else is because no other woman has come close to Lyrica. And he also learned a lesson from this experience--that cruel fate laughs at his love's loss and such happiness is not meant for him. He's a fatalist and no womam can persuade him that a better fate should be his lot.

[superduperman]

From what I understand, Superman not being allowed to move forward romantically was more an editorial fiat than anything else. The older editors who were still controlling the books at the time wanted the comics to still be for kids so no hanky panky. Compare this to Batman who was allowed to move forward, have romantic relationships, have his sidekick grow up; that sort of thing. Remember the issue where Silver Saint Cloud is waking up in the morning and telling Bruce Wayne what a great night they had? That was in the seventies. Compare that to the one time they tried it with Superman and Lois and an actual line of dialogue was removed that implied they slept together.

I think the relationship would have been inevitable simply because the old model of doing things wasn't working anyway. Keep in mind, by the time COIE came out, half their line was due for cancellation. They would have had to try something new regardless. The Superman line wasn't exactly a top seller then. And I honestly believe if they had allowed him to move forward earlier, maybe COIE could have been avoided.

[Jim Kelly]

Pre-Crisis, they didn't really need Superman to get married to Lois in the ongoing continuity, because that could be shown in other ways: what-if stories, dreams, hoaxes, alternate Earths, possible futures.

I'm sure that, even without the Crisis, as time went on and DC became more desperate they would have tried the marriage gambit. But I don't personally like it.

I'd also say that among professionals and fans alike there seems to be an even split between those that like Lois and those that have some grudge against her. In his GENERATIONS, sure John Byrne let Superman marry Lois, but he also let Superman be long-lived while he saddled Lois with natural ageing, dooming her character. Which left Superman free to hook up with a Lana Lang who had also been given near-immortality.

The Earth-Two Kal-L got to marry Lois--letting DC show an ongoing marriage, while at the same time leaving Earth-One Superman a bachelor. But ultimately, Earth-Two Lois was also aged and killed off.

Letting Lois marry Superman puts her in the gun-sights of too many pros and fans. That's one reason I don't like it. Plus I don't agree with the idea of having characters develop--because they really don't. You can only kick the ball so far down the field. The comics can't show the complete lives of Bruce and Clark from cradle to grave--so any advancement is just incremental. And it's just as likely that a new editorial mandate will want to reverse the progress. So we end up with damaged continuity.

I see nothing wrong with an ongoing status quo. I don't think that's what has harmed Superman's sales.

If I was going to advise the fictional characters in comic books and soap operas, I'd advise them to stay away from marriage and having kids. The chances that a spouse will get killed off are overwhelming--and if the spouse doesn't get killed off then it's the main character. If they have kids, the chances are this kid will be hyper-aged, turn to hate his/her parents, go through a number of horrible traumas, get abducted time and again--and if the kid is ever lucky enough to reach maturity, the kid will probably die or be rebooted out of existence.

Given how long Superman has been around, he should have learned these lessons and seen firsthand that any attempt at domestic life is bound to fail.

[superduperman]

I've spent a lot of time thinking about continuity and I've come to the conclusion that the only method that really works is the Archie method. Stand alone stories with a loose continuity where the status quo more or less stays the same. In an era where adults read comics more than kids and kids are into things like Manga where stories progress to a natural conclusion, superhero comics are stuck in a bind. They have to be "realistic" to keep the adults but also have to be able to be accessible to future generations ten or twenty years out. That means no REAL progression but at least the appearance of one. I think that has a lot to do with what we are seeing in comics now. Superman is allowed to get married and have a kid to appeal to the adults who did the same but then he isn't allowed to age.

[CharlesInCharge]

Letting Lois marry Superman puts her in the gun-sights of too many pros and fans. That's one reason I don't like it. Plus I don't agree with the idea of having characters develop--because they really don't. You can only kick the ball so far down the field. The comics can't show the complete lives of Bruce and Clark from cradle to grave--so any advancement is just incremental. And it's just as likely that a new editorial mandate will want to reverse the progress. So we end up with damaged continuity.

When they're done right, I think that this is one of the reasons why I prefer cinematic incarnations of superheroes, since they have the opportunity to, as you mentioned, show the life of the hero from cradle to grave. As much as this is a controversial thing to say, following ANY superhero, whether it be Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, whoever, gets boring after a certain period, since any alterations to the status quo, e.g death, ageing, marriage, will be reversed eventually. And when those reversals are done badly like, for example, a hero selling his marriage to the Devil, well...

[Jim Kelly]

I don't find boring any fiction that depends on a repeated formula and a status quo. But I can see why some might find it so, if they come at the work from a different perspective.

For example, let's say there's someone that has never read Archie comics and RIVERDALE is their first introduction to Archie Andrews and the gang. And let's further imagine that this person actually loves RIVERDALE (as impossible as that seems). They then decide to read some random sampling of Archie comics, including many reprints of Archie classics. This hypothetical reader would probably find vintage Archie dull and repetitive--and moreover they wouldn't find whatever it is they get from RIVERDALE.

But I love the status quo in the Archie comics. For like 60 years, Archie existed in this kind of temporal loop, where the only thing that was updated was the fashions. Sure, it was kind of a rite of passage to read Archies when you were young. I certainly read the most when I was a teen--but long after my teens, I would often pick up a double digest in the drugstore just for the comfort that I got from seeing this repeated formula.

Financially, for a long time, comics could keep going because new generations were always discovering them. They were being read by a mass market. So the prices were low--and even though many readers would grow out of comics, other readers were always replacing them. Archie seemed to keep going a lot longer with that business model. DC lost its dependable mass market in the '80s and it had to appeal to a niche group of readers, where there wasn't generational turnover.

Even if it's true that the average reader gets bored, it doesn't matter if there are always other readers discovering comics for the first time. It only becomes a problem when the readership decreases. Then the publishers have to keep doing things to keep that small pool of readers interested. And the comics have to have a big enough price tag so they can still make a profit even though the print runs are lower.

So those readers, because they are used to comics that upset the status quo, come at the vintage comics with a different perspective. They're expecting to get the kind of jolts they get from modern comics. And when they don't get that, they feel underwhelmed by the classics.

[RedWhiteAndBlueSupes]

If I'm not mistaken, John Byrne was willing to do his Superman run even without the character getting a reboot, so whether COIE happened on not, the character would have still been heading in the direction that would lead to him and Lois getting married.

Yeah I think so too. If COIE never happened, I think he would be the same guy he is now, albiet with a more consistent back story and better written rogues.

[RedWhiteAndBlueSupes]

I don't find boring any fiction that depends on a repeated formula and a status quo. But I can see why some might find it so, if they come at the work from a different perspective.

For example, let's say there's someone that has never read Archie comics and RIVERDALE is their first introduction to Archie Andrews and the gang. And let's further imagine that this person actually loves RIVERDALE (as impossible as that seems). They then decide to read some random sampling of Archie comics, including many reprints of Archie classics. This hypothetical reader would probably find vintage Archie dull and repetitive--and moreover they wouldn't find whatever it is they get from RIVERDALE.

But I love the status quo in the Archie comics. For like 60 years, Archie existed in this kind of temporal loop, where the only thing that was updated was the fashions. Sure, it was kind of a rite of passage to read Archies when you were young. I certainly read the most when I was a teen--but long after my teens, I would often pick up a double digest in the drugstore just for the comfort that I got from seeing this repeated formula.

Financially, for a long time, comics could keep going because new generations were always discovering them. They were being read by a mass market. So the prices were low--and even though many readers would grow out of comics, other readers were always replacing them. Archie seemed to keep going a lot longer with that business model. DC lost its dependable mass market in the '80s and it had to appeal to a niche group of readers, where there wasn't generational turnover.

Even if it's true that the average reader gets bored, it doesn't matter if there are always other readers discovering comics for the first time. It only becomes a problem when the readership decreases. Then the publishers have to keep doing things to keep that small pool of readers interested. And the comics have to have a big enough price tag so they can still make a profit even though the print runs are lower.

So those readers, because they are used to comics that upset the status quo, come at the vintage comics with a different perspective. They're expecting to get the kind of jolts they get from modern comics. And when they don't get that, they feel underwhelmed by the classics.

Really great response Jim, I totally agree. The medium is dependent on a repeated status quo. I mean how many sandwiches can Dagwood eat right? Nice to know I'm not the only Archie fan on here too lol.

IMO anyway, I prefer the old fashioned newspaper strip, newsstand method of delivery. And I have no overriding love for the Direct Market or Diamond.

[Jim Kelly]

I haven't got a daily newspaper for a long time, but when I did have access to one (usually through my parents), I'd always check Blondie. I found it very soothing to see that strip and the repeated formulas. I especially admired the inking on it--the beautiful line work on Dagwood. There's such control there. To produce these figures with such consistency, I always found that masterful.

[Adekis]

Could it still have happened? Yeah, I guess I don't see why not.

Here's a thought though: John Byrne's run may have led indirectly to the marriage with Lois, but if DC had let him get away with every change he wanted to make, he'd have gotten Clark involved with Lana instead, as he considered her his "true love" over Lois!

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

Could it still have happened? Yeah, I guess I don't see why not.

Here's a thought though: John Byrne's run may have led indirectly to the marriage with Lois, but if DC had let him get away with every change he wanted to make, he'd have gotten Clark involved with Lana instead, as he considered her his "true love" over Lois!

I just looked this up, because I had no idea that was the case.

What was your reasoning behind having Lana be the one to have known Clark's identity from the beginning?

John Byrne: If I had really had the free hand some fans are convinced I did, I would have dumped Lois altogether and brought Lana back as Superman/Clark's one true love. But there were somethings that had to remain inviolable, and one was the Superman/Lois/Clark relationship. So I did the best I could to justify Lana's position in his life -- a position that was imposed not by any sort of internal logic, but by the simple fact that Superboy and his supporting cast were created years after the debut of Superman.

I find this pretty unbelievable, because when he wrote Lana, he made her obsessed with Superman, even stalking him and then had her be brutalized by Lex's henchmen.

And with Lois, did he mean dropping her as the love interest, or removing her from Superman comics altogether?

[BeefBourguignon]

Clark and Lois being engaged did not have much to do directly with COIE or John Byrne. One time Jerry Ordway talk about how after Byrne left they (Jerry and the other writers, and Mike Carlin) decided to go in a different direction from the relationship Byrne establish, which was Clark and Lois having antagonistic rivalry, with Lois outright distrusting Clark after the Manhunter arc when she visit Smallville, too. After Byrne, the writers spent a couple years working on making Lois and Clark be closer and heal the rivalry. So it have nothing to do with the reboot per se. It was a change in direction made years after.

[BeefBourguignon]

I find this pretty unbelievable, because when he wrote Lana, he made her obsessed with Superman, even stalking him and then had her be brutalized by Lex's henchmen.

The stalking was because of DC's Millennium crossover event that was planned. Byrne had a mandate to make one supporting cast member a Manhunter traitor and he chose Lana, and wrote foreshadowing hints.