Wendy Richards posted this elsewhere but I didn't want to reply there because it really is hi- jacking that particular thread, something which I'd indicated in that other thread a few of us, Wendy included, were close to doing
So I've quoted some of Wendy's post below, at least the part that related to my comments in that other thread and reposted it here.
[QUOTE] But I feel that this takes your argument too far, Carol, and risks being insulting not just to [the author] but also to other readers:
quote:
Anyway, once Lois Lane gets demoted in Clark's emotions to just "one of Clark's women" then the story no longer feels like an L & C story, but, instead, only a Clark Kent story or a Smallville story in which that great iconic figure of Lois Lane is kicked back into a pre-feminist corner and told to be good, be quiet, to wait her turn, prove herself worthy, and then she too will get a turn to service the super man. (or even worse, semi-bimboized)
Sure, we can "love" several men at the same time or serially - because we enjoy one more than another in bed, because another is on the same wave length, or we laugh at the same jokes or because he's a great cook. But like that wry observation about the contemporary school system - when all kids are told they are special, then no one really *is* special.
I know, though, that many on these mbs are now looking for Clark-centric stories with Lois playing only a secondary role, and have less interest in the actual TV series, beyond Clark Kent.
------
I'll [wendy] take the last point here, because it's an argument you've made several times. Why do you insist that readers/writers who believe that people (men or women) can love more than one person in their lifetime, and specifically that Clark could have loved someone before Lois (or love someone else after losing her) have no real interest in Lois?
-----
Define, "love".
Wendy, I honestly think you're missing some of what I've said - I haven't denied at all that either Lois or Clark could have had a relationship with someone else and perceived that as love. I'd hoped that my comments about the different types of love, as well as my comments about Alt-Clark, made that clear.
My focus was on the premises of L & C about both the uniqueness of the relationship and also about the importance of Lois Lane. So where i don't see that reflected in a story, it's difficult to assume the writer as a "real" interest in Lois Lane.
As well, I'd hoped I'd explained why I see Lois Lane as a symbolic, iconic character. An important character in broader, pop culture terms. I don't see her as interchangeable with other women in the L& C universe (unlike the Smallville universe, say, where she may even be Chloe
)
So this is something I personally look to see reflected in stories. Clearly some others on these boards do not as their comments have made clear. I haven't challenged their right to express those opinions, just noted that they are there and looked for the internal logic of what has been written.
But why is it so difficult to accept that many people who read/post on these mbs have not bought into the L & C premises about the relationship and about Lois lane's importance? You can't have it both ways - either Lois Lane is merely one of Clark Kent's several women, without any special significance, or she is not. I believe most people here get the contradiction involved in trying to rationalise both views.
Anyway, I even admitted to wanting to feel that special romantic, iconic sense of their relationship in stories but said that I knew that was pretty 'hopeless' given a post-modern "i love the guy I'm up with" construct. I thought my posts had made it clear I realised i was in a minority.
But I'll restate - *I* want to believe in that great love affair that is Lois Lane and Clark Kent, not just that Lois Lane is next in line.
Many don't, and that's the way it goes.
How fans of Smallville or other Superman incarnations view Clark Kent as well as his relationship with Lois Lane is beside the point here on these mbs. I don't suspect they're surprised at having their views challenged. Were I to read fics posted on sites dedicated to those incarnations, I would know that I could expect what we see in that particular incarnation - for example, on a Smallville site: Clark and Lana or Clark and Chloe or Clark and Lois or Clark and Lex or Clark and (I can't remember the name of the girl he married!) But here I don't think it's unreasonable to look for "Lois and Clark".
btw, i too would like to see your mother-in-law meet a nice man.
--------
Wendy continues:
"Believe it or not, it is possible to love more than one person in a lifetime without devaluing either relationship. I've heard people say that the love they have for their second partner is 'completely different, but just as strong' and doesn't take away at all from the love they had for their first partner. As others have said in the past - even as much as we want Lois and Clark to be together for ever - if for some reason Lois lost Clark, or Clark lost Lois, would you really argue that the survivor should be alone for the rest of his/her life? But then it's pretty obvious that you do."
You're putting words in my mouth again, W. As I said repeatedly, in RL people often settle into different types of relationships or love. Their personal stories are nice, comforting but..... <g> Bring on the great L & C love story!
Wendy again:
" Yes, the Lana we saw in the alt-universe wasn't a nice person, but Clark did seem to hint that the Lana he knew was a good friend. Why couldn't a happy marriage result from that? And it wasn't as if he'd even met Lois at that stage."
No reason at all - see my original post in the other thread. Oh, and define "happy"
That's as loaded as the word "love".
Wendy again:
"Besides, what seems to be clear from the story and [the author's] comments in this thread is that she is also a Lois and Clark shipper, so your suggestion that she isn't, purely based on the fact that you don't like Clark's back-story here, is just a tad unfair, don't you think?"
With respect, the story doesn't make that clear at all. As well, the author's comments indicated she's a bit ambivalent on the issue. Nevertheless I did not say that she was not an L & C shipper. As well, I ended both posts with a recognition of the author's "right to write" her own story.
Wendy again:
"You're both entitled to your opinions. ..... thread this morning."
How is my stating my opinion undermining the opinions of others? Your comment is unfair, Wendy, suggesting that only those who agree with your viewpoint may express their opinions. Is that what these mbs have become?
c.
