Actually, Labrat, I don't think that's what's Phil is saying because I agree with him and I'm certainly not saying that to call only
your opinion rubbish. Believe me, I've run across the same opinion in other loops and think it's rubbish there too. I've had published writers tell me that characters are only truly heroic, and notice I'm not even saying super-heroes there, if they're dark and broody and angsty as you know what. So they actually look down their noses at the well-adjusted, good guys. Give those good guys super powers of any kind and those same writers start whining and complaining that there's no story there. Oye. Where are their brains?
So, Phil is right to challenge this perception as rubbish for two reasons. The first is the reason he gives about basic writing and stretching ourselves to find ways to make those good guys work regardless but there's another even more intriguing one - if the "hero" is the only one who can be dark and angsty, then when do we get the dark and angsty "heroines"?
Yes, that may sound like a play on words solely for gender purposes but think about this, would L&C have worked quite as well if Lois had been just as well-adjusted and positively minded as Clark?
Hmmm?
