Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Basis for Fanfic Continuity

Wendy brought up my name in her last comments post for David's story. She and Ann had been commenting on the various incarnations of Lois and Clark/Superman that exist and how they figure into the continuity of fanfiction. Particularly she posed the question as how much, those of us who are familiar with the comic book versions, utilize what is given there.

I chose to start a separate thread rather than hijack David's comments folder to present this. I'm sure there are many others who have more than a passing familiarity with the comic book versions who may wish to join in.

Personally, for this particular fanfiction I always used the television series as the world where my characters existed. (Though my 'Faith, Hope, and more Hope' was based on the comic book universe and only borrowed the emotions I saw presented in the series).

Since most of the fanfics have a significant 'relationship' component to them, they lend themselves much more readily to the series as their base. Even though the John Byrne retcon tried to bring out the facet of Clark being who he was and Superman being what he can do, it's still a comic book aimed at young males, which means that action is of primary importance. Which means that Superman is of primary importance. I mean, look at the titles; Superman, The Adventures of Superman, and Action Comics. Kind of tells the tale doesn't it?

The television series was about two characters; Lois and Clark. Superman was actually just another supporting character. Most fanfiction is about Lois and Clark and their relationship and how it is affected by whatever is happenning in the story. Even an action heavy plot needs to address these issues if it's to be appreciated by the audience we have here. That's mainly why the television series is generally considered the canon universe for L&C fics.

Having said that, it doesn't mean that I'm not above 'borrowing' aspects from other media that I find compelling, or appropriate to my characters. Lois will always, physically, be Teri Hatcher in my stories, but I tend to make her somewhat of an amalgam of the televised version and the comic book version. (The movie versions are patently ignored). The Lois of the comic books is actually a bit tougher, and more competent than the one in the series. She has grown up an army brat and has learned a lot of hand to hand from that experience. She's also completed the MPD's SCU unit training. So she's more able to 'take care of herself' than the Lois from TV (even though that's one of her favorite phrases). Sometimes I give my fanfic Lois some of that extra 'training' which allows her to be less dependant in dangerous situations.

The Lois in the comics did have many 'issues' with men, but we aren't as familiar with the reasons why (other than no one could 'keep up with her') because the comics don't spend a lot of time on the emotional backround unless it directly ties in to the current story line. The series gave us a lot of that, which makes for good fodder in fanfics, which again, lean heavily on the relationship aspect.

Bottomline: as the writer, one can use whatever characteristics one wants to write his/her fanfiction. But when you take into consideration the content of most L&C fanfics, the series just makes a better backdrop to such stories. And, I dare say, it's the versions of Lois and Clark that most of the gentle readers are familiar with.

Tank (who generally ignores the movie versions because all they got right was Superman; Clark, Lois, Perry, and all the rest were written or acted quite poorly)

I absolutely agree with Tank that this is the place where you discuss things like the importance of the Superman comic book world versus the Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher TV show. Is the latter the only acceptable springboard for a Lois and Clark fanfic story? If it is, to what extent should a writer try to make his or her story a spinoff of an individual episode of that show, and to what extent should a fanfic writer see the continuity canon of the show as the guide to what kind of behavior is acceptable from Lois and Clark in the story that he or she is writing?

As some of you may know, I don't think that the TV show should be the "gospel" as to what the story of Lois and Clark is all about. That's not because I think the TV show is bad in any way. Although I have confessed in another thread that I have seen less than half of all the episodes, I can so easily see that this TV show is the best thing that has ever happened to the myth about Superman. I, too, think that Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher are terrific as Clark and Lois. I I simply love the fact that Lois is as important as Clark or Superman in the ABC TV show. This elevation of the importance of Lois is, after all, exactly what I have wanted to see during 37 of the 38 years that I have been a Superman fan. And I absolutely adore the fact that Clark and Lois's love for one another is, if anything, even more important to Clark in the show than his life and heroics as Superman.

The reason why I have, nevertheless, watched so little of the show is simply this. After being a comic book fan for 38 years, I have come to the conclusion that the particulars of an individual Superman story, or Lois and Clark story, aren't important. Believe me, if I had tried to memorize the the nitty-gritty little details of the individual issues of all the various Superman comics I have read over the years, and fit them into any sort of continuity, I'd be in hospital by now. It's the bigger picture that counts. Really the only things that are important are the things that are important to you, as a fan. What's important to me isn't how Clark is going to stop an asteroid called Nightfall, or even that he is going to try to stop an asteroid called Nightfall. What's important to me is that Clark is going to risk his life in order to save the Earth, and at the same time he is rather unhappily in love with Lois, and he is struggling with the question of whether or not he ought to tell her his big secret. That's what's important to me. Similarly, if I want him to tell her, and if I want her to accept and love him as both Clark and Superman, then it's irrelevant to me whether or not the continuity of the ABC TV show actually allows the two of them to do just that at that particular moment.

My main objection to the show, and the reason why I have no particular wish to try to see the episodes that I have missed, is my strong feeling that the show is in the past. Sorry about that. But you must understand that I have been following Superman since 1968, and Superman and Lois since early 1969. These 38 years as a Superman fan have made me feel that the whole concept of Superman is an ongoing process, an ever evolving continuity. There are new stories about Superman, and even about Superman and Lois or Lois and Clark, being churned out all the time in the comic book world. And there is an upcoming movie. The Superman world has moved on, as it were, but the Lois and Clark TV show is still stuck in the time slot of 1996 to 1998, or whatever the exact years were.

I'm not saying that the new stuff coming out is better than the Lois and Clark TV show. On the contrary, I think it is most definitely inferior to it. But I am saying that you can't live in the past. To me, the single most fascinating aspect of having been a Superman fan for 38 years is the wonder of having seen Superman evolve and change during all this time. I know that all these years of Superman-watching have made me come to a conclusion as to what Superman is all about. It's about a man who pretends to be two men, and who is powerfully attracted to a woman while at the same time being afraid of her, and therefore repelled by her. The woman, in turn, is attracted to the aspect of this man that rejects her, and she is turned off by the aspect of the man that wants her. Also the man is a super-powered alien superhero who likes to spend most of the time pretending to be an absolutely ordinary human male. The man is beautifully altruistic, and he has this - to a woman - wonderful ability to be incredibly attracted to just one woman. To me, this is extremely powerful stuff. And so much of it has been far more clearly expressed in the ABC TV show than anywhere else. Therefore, the legacy of this TV show is so beautiful. Even so, the show is in the past, and I want to look forward. Getting stuck in the nitty-gritty details of the show isn't the best way to look ahead, if you ask me.

So, FoLCs, where do you find the best ongoing Superman continuity, the best explorations of unchartered Lois and Clark territories? To me, there is no doubt. They are right here, on these bords, in the stories that many of you FoLCs keep writing and posting right here. In my opinion, you are exploring a modern myth, uncovering unexpected jewels and making the whole thing ever richer and more fascinating in the process. Some of you think that the ABC TV show, down to its minor details, is what you want to write about. Even then, you bring out never-before-seen aspects of the Superman myth. But it may be that when I read your stories, I may not be able to see them for what they really are. If the nitty-gritty details of the TV show are what you are exploring, then I will always read your story in a way you had not intended. So let's agree to disagree about the Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher TV show. Just remember this: I love your stories.

Ann

I'll preface this by saying that I know zilch about the comics so this is going to be a slight rabbit trail--this more addresses the myth concept. As a child, I wasn't into comics and still don't find them all that appealing.

This may be why I find it somewhat bizarre how strongly attached I am to this television show. For me, all of the "world" I know surrounding these characters begins with the television show. It shapes how I perceive and read all stories with these characters.

Ann, you make a good point regarding the boards. I do believe that the show (and now FolCs) have taken this "modern myth" and expanded it much further. That's when we end up debating.

However, I still believe that my basis for how I perceive the characters is strongly influenced by how they were written in the show. Now, granted, I think authors have elaborated on that--a discussion regarding when/if Clark would cry comes to mind here. But, I doubt we would have stories with the same emotional component to them today if it weren't for the series.

It's probably possible to read the FoLC stories and have the same basis as those who had seen the series (Hazel comes to mind). However, I don't thing someone who had only read the comics (and hadn't read any of the stories) would be able to walk in and write a story that would jive with the Lois and Clark we are familiar with. In that sense, I believe some knowledge of the show, whether first or secondhand, is necessary.

So, I guess it all comes down to my feeling that while this Superman myth may be more universal, for me personally, the myth centres around what happened in one specific show and ripples out from there.

Still, I have no difficulties buying Tank's philosophy of using elements from other media. Lois in the stories often *is* stronger than the one on the show, and if it came about as a result of the comics, more power to her. I'll even read a story featuring Supergirl *if* the writer makes it plausible to me.

I do still see the "nitty gritty" parts of the show as something worth getting into, though. After all (while this may get me accused of heresy for the comparison) the Bible has been around a lot longer yet people are still studying it and discussing the tiny details. Why not also something less exalted?

I saw this thread title and thought -- fanfic continuity? There ain't no such thing Authors take the characters and stories in a thousand new directions, and very few of the stories can fit together as a seamless universe. Writers pick and choose which elements of the concept to play with, which emotions to highlight, etc. So I guess the question is, what's the array from which they pick and choose?

For me, it's mostly the series. I've read some comics and seen a few other versions of Superman, but I wasn't a fan before L&C. My husband's really gotten into Smallville but it tends to irritate me -- their versions of Clark and especially Lois just seem *wrong* to me. But then, there were definitely parts of L&C that seemed wrong to me, too.

So, I pick the stuff I find useful and fix the stuff that annoys me, and go off in any direction that seems interesting. L&C is my "home base" but I don't stay there. I very rarely write stories that are completely in continuity with the show. For me, fanfic is the opportunity to take a flawed show with a great premise and improve on it. Of course, my definition of "improved" won't exactly match anyone else's, but what the heck.

That said, it doesn't especially bother me if writers draw on other sources, as long as they're harmonized with L&C to some extent. Come to think of it, I drew on the comics in Hearts Divided, making Lois an army brat. Some comics-based stories bore me -- but some L&C-based stories bore me, too.

The only caveat I would have, I think, is that I think an author ought not to *assume* that the reader has a background in comics. A lot of L&C fanfic starts with the assumption that everyone knows the backstory. Someone mentions Lex in a fourth season or later story, Lois and Clark wince, and it's not explained further; it's assumed that the reader already knows all that. Which is fair, I think -- this is, after all, Lois & Clark fandom. Other sources need a little more explaining. So if you want to use Maggie Sawyer, that's fine by me -- but please introduce her to me just as you would an original character.

PJ

Pam, You make an excellant point on what the writer can and cannot assume his audience is already familiar with.

One of the major advantages of writing fanfiction over something 'original' (which many of us have been finding out of late) is all the 'backstory' that one can assume the reader already knows.

As you said, this is mostly a Lois and Clark fandom site and as such one can be confident that those who play here are fairly conversant with the basics of Lois and Clark television show. That is not to say that they would have to have every episode pratically memorized, but a reasonable knowledge is logical to assume. This gives the writer a huge advantage in not having to explain a lot of 'characterization' or personality traits. You don't have to explain what Lois' federal disasters were every time, nor the fact that she's a driven over acheiver. You don't have to spend a lot of time on Clark's motivations to do good. How is parental upbringing had such an impact on him. These things can, and are often mentioned, but rarely need extensive explanation.

But if you are bringing in something from 'outside' the series, the writer can't assume that the gentle reader is familiar with it. Using Pam's example of Maggie Sawyer (who has been used in fanfics several times) there can be a range of knowledge. L&C never used her, so your readerships largest component of background doesn't know her. Maggie Sawyer exists in three different versions of the Superman mythos. Smallville, Superman the Animated series, and of course, the comics. Each version is a little different so her use would need some sort of 'justification and explanation' anyway. In Smallville she is just a generic 'tough cop'. In the animated version she is paired with Dan Turpin and has been fleshed out a little more. In the comics (over the course of years) she has been turned into a 3 dimensional supporting character. She's a tough cop, who is partnered with Dan Turpin. She's also the head of Metropolis PD's SCU department (as she is in the animated series) but we've also seen some of her 'personal' side. If I'm not mistaken, she's a single mother who also happens to be gay.

So, when using a character that isn't automatically familiar with the core readership it does fall to the writer to give the character enough dimensionality to explain their part in the story. If all you need to know is that Sawyer is the head of the SCU, that's fine. But if her part in the story require us to understand her 'motivations' for certain actions, then the writer has to explain those. He/She can't assume the reader knows that Maggie has a kid, or whatever.

Anyway, this was a lot of words to say a simple thing. The writer has to know who their audience is, and has to be aware of their core knowledge even when writing a fanfic.

Tank (who wonders how many of the multitude of folcs have more than the passing contact with the comics)

You know, this is really interesting, because, back when I was reading all that early fanfic, I always mistook Maggie for the character in IOM. I think LNC called her Betty Reed? I hadn't paid attention well enough watching the episode to realise the names were different and Maggie as a character was always so close to Betty I just (wrongly I now realise!) put two and two together and came up with five.

:rolleyes:

I have to agree with Pam that authors should take a moment to think about what FoLCs may or may not recognise in their fanfic.

I remember, way back when, I was very impressed with a particular FoLC author's original characters. I'm not saying who, so don't ask.

It was only months after reading most of her stories that I suddenly became aware that these weren't original characters at all, but characters which had been taken direct from the comics. I'd never read the comics and so had no way till someone mentioned it in passing to realise the difference.

I remember I felt so disappointed, even cheated. Here I'd been, praising this author for her inventiveness, and the characters were secondhand.

I should stress here that I have no reason to believe that this particular author was trying to pass off comic characters as her own or indulging in anything underhand. Rather, I suspect it was simply a case that it never occurred to her that anyone would mistake them for other than they were.

But it does illustrate Pam's point. That if you use such characters, don't assume everyone will recognise them for what they are. You could always put an author's note in to say that you've used comics characters A, B and C (or whatever), if you don't want to spend a lot of actual story time introducing them in depth.

LabRat

Actually, I acquired the backstory by reading fics -- I watched the show from time to time, but I was never an avid fan.

Both of my fics have been based on the old TV cartoons, actually, trying to reframe their plots in the L&C world and letting the combination be humorous.

I came into this fandom NOT knowing the backstory, and piecing it together by those authors kind enough not to assume everything. And by reading enough rewrites from different points in the season to piece together what originally happened.

Cue for a poll?

My only contact with the comics is from a couple of years ago, when I bought one out of curiosity - and also in the hope that here would be another way in which I could enjoy stories about Lois, Clark and Superman. Well, I didn't enjoy it at all. I found the drawings, particularly of people, unattractive and crude - *hated* the drawings of Superman - and didn't get much out of the stories, either. I guess comics just aren't for me. Maybe I lack the imagination to make them work for me.

Moving on, it's struck me that some comments seem to be approaching things from upside down.

But isn't it the other way around? Surely the fundamental starting point for the members of this board, which is a forum for fans of the TV series, is the TV series? It's not that writers here consider all the options and then pick the series as their backdrop because that fits their purpose best. Writers here start with the series and then write from that point onwards. Don't they?

I agree, and I imagine most people here would, too. But, again, we're a forum based on the TV show, so here at least, the TV series *is* the gospel. We deviate from the gospel, of course , but that's our starting point.

BTW, I'm not saying that we shouldn't welcome stories which use elements from other Superman incarnations. I'd like to think we're a reasonably broad church in that respect. It's just that some parts of the discussion seemed to be topsy-turvy to this particular pedant.

Yvonne

PS - forgot to say, Ann, that it's really interesting to get a fresh perspective on the series and where it sits in the overall Superman continuity.

Is it just me or does this bring strongly to anyone else's mind a certain L&C novelization that actually got published . . . for money?

Okay, my holiday frazzled brain is trying to remind me that there were actually two separate attempts at novelization but I'm drawing a blank on specific details. Was there a long book by Cherryl and a separate set of short novels by a different author(s)? Or am I imagining that? If there was, then it's the longer book I'm thinking of because the short ones weren't all that bad if I remember correctly.

The point being that it was obvious the Cherryl book was NOT based on L&C. What exactly it was based on, I don't exactly know because I couldn't finish it. It was just such a letdown that she didn't even seem to know anything about the source material.

And I'm not talking Superman.

Although, come to think of it, I do remember thinking that she wasn't even getting him right either, but then again I'm not a comic book fan so maybe that was biased on my part as well.

I feel the need to point out that I read the comics exclusively to see what happens to Lois and Clark these days. I loved the Superman comics when I first discovered them in the late sixties, but back then the comics were still in the Silver Age. The stories were wonderfully imaginative, delightfully funny and sweetly, whimsically absurd. The level of violence would have been rated below G by today's standards. The comics back then were just delightful comfort food for my childish mind.

However, ever since the beginning of the seventies I have read the comics, like I said, exclusively to see what would happen to Superman and Lois. There have been a number of really, really good stories during the years that I have been a "Lois and Clark Superman comic book reader", so I have certainly had a good time with the comics after the end of the Silver Age, too. But on the whole, I have to agree with Yvonne when she says of the comics of today that she
The problem with the comics these days is that they basically seem to be written for boys who are into computer games. You know, the sort of games where the hero gets into mindless slugfests with incredibly monstrous-looking monsters and scores points every time he can blow an adversary into smithereens. Unfortunately that is what the Superman comics all too often look like these days. I'd like to be able to recommend today's comics to you FoLCs, but I can't.

But I do remember all those good stories I have read over the years, though. Of course I remember Maggie Sawyer very well. And how about Bibbo Bibbowski? Or Perry White's son, Gerry? Or Cat Grant's son - now, that was an unspeakable thing they did to him in the comics!!!

What particularly strikes me when I watch the TV series is that the people behind the show have taken so many of the best aspects of the Superman myth and put them in the show. They have refined and emphasized many of those things that I loved best about the comics. But they have also added things that have no counterparts in the comics, and here are a few things that I really can't stand. There is the Lois clone that Clark got to spend a night with, or, worse, Lois's near-marriage to Lex Luthor. I think the reason why I hate that is that I never, ever felt that Lois could do something like that in the comics. You've got to understand that I've spent around 37 years in the company of Lois, and to me, her acceptance of Lex's proposal is totally out of character for her. Unfortunately for me, her liason with Luthor is a very popular theme for fanfic stories, so we get to read about it over and over again on these boards, and I have a very hard time accepting it. Similarly, I'm flabbergasted at the suggestion that Clark would leave Lois to go to New Krypton to fight some war there, because that is certainly something he never did in the comics. This, too, is something I have a hard time accepting in fanfic stories.

It is when I read stories where Lois almost, or actually, marries Luthor, or where Clark leaves Lois to go to Krypton to fight a war, that I am really reminded that on some level at least, I really am more of a comic book fan than a L&C:TNAOS fan.

Ann

I'm not completely sure this reasoning works, though, because I'm certainly not a fan of the comic book Superman - even if I did a copy of the DC Comics Encyclopedia for Christmas - and I had/have major problems with those two storylines on L&C even though I've probably at least alluded to them in fan fictions once or twice.

Personally, I've never thought Lois, and particularly the Lois of the pilot episode, would've gotten involved with Lex Luthor . . . she was too suspicious of everyone's motives. And she wasn't that needy, either, that she had to fall for Lex's line. Neurotic at times, yeah, but Clark was right, where did the great investigative reporter go when it came to Lex?

And don't even get me started on the reasoning behind Clark's leaving for New Krypton. His logic was hard enough to swallow but, by the same token as the earlier situation with Lex, I kept wondering where that great investigative reporter known as Mad Dog Lane had gone in looking at the story behind the story the NK were dishing out. I mean it was just too bizarre that they had to have him or else. I love L&C's Clark and Superman but really, any advanced civilization that couldn't survive without him ruling it is just downright pathetic any way you look at it. :rolleyes:

So, no, I don't believe having problems with any of the storylines on the series has anything to do with being a comic book fan or not. We probably each have a list of the episodes we think stink, one way or another.

On the other hand, devoted as I am to the series, I also think there's a wealth of things from the comics that can play very well into a L&C story if and when they're pertinent. And they don't have to be current comic info either. For instance, one of the first tidbits I pounced on in that encyclopedia was the existence of a Superwoman and an Ultraman in some alternate universe or other in the 1960s, I think. Ultraman was surprise enough but my poor heart just about stopped when I read the description of Superwoman. Oh, my, the L&C possibilities.

There were three Friedman novels - they were a little teen-orientated and light on plot, but they were pretty good reading. The Cherryh novel was a major disappointment.

Agreed. It seemed to me as I was reading that it was based on the comics more than anything else. Lois had a cat, for example. And I certainly found myself throughout constantly going, "Huh? What? Since when?" I was angry at having paid money for a book which advertised itself as being based on LNC when it was patently clear that Cherryh had never seen the show or used it as her source material.

LabRat

A friend of mine heard from some friends of his at DC that the Cherryh book was literally hacked out in a long weekend. The book was done strictly for the money. I've read other books by the author which I have enjoyed and so was surprisingly disappointed in the bland, and uninteresting mess that was put forth.

It had a nice jacket cover though.

Tank (who knows that occasionally in the comics, Lois had a cat named Elroy)

Oh, and BTW there still is a Superwoman, and an Ultraman in the current comics. They are part of the Crime Syndicate which rules an alternate dimension (Earth 3 I believe). They are aided by Owlman, Power Ring, and a copy of the Flash whose name I forget.

Many people think that Superwoman is the evil version of Wonder Woman, and power-wise she probably is, but she is actually a Lois Lane.

Tank (who wonders if the current Infinite Crisis going on in the DC comics, which is interesting so far, will hold up... or screw up)

LabRat, Lois had a cat in the comics at about the time when she and Clark got engaged in the comics in 1990. The cat - whose name was Elroy, as Tank said - stayed for a couple of years, but then it just sort of disappeared, and no one, including Lois, seemed to notice it was gone. Yeah, well, that sort of things have happened in the comics more than once, believe me. That may be how I learnt that you can't take the concept of rigorous continuity too incredibly seriously when you are reading about Lois and Clark.

I haven't read the Friedman novels, because I haven't read any novels or short stories that were really based on the TV series. What were the titles of these novels? Did you appreciate their take on Lois and Clark?

Oh, and Beverly, thanks for pointing out the utter stupididty of the whole New Krypton arc. Clark knows zilch about New Krypton's language, culture, society, history, traditions, religion, political system etc etc, and yet he accepts - and Lois accepts - that he is the only one who can save this world because he was born to be their leader? The only conclusion they should have drawn from this is that the Kryptonian society isn't worth saving.

Ann

Yes, that was my point. I don't know why I knew she had a cat in the comics, because I've never read them, but I did and that was why I suspected Cherryh had used the comics and not the show for the basis of her novel - because in her novel Lois had a cat and she didn't in LNC. QED.

That pretty much sums up my entire feelings about it, Tank. I loved the cover, but the novel sucked. I had previously read Cherryh's 'Gates' novels and although they weren't enormous favourites I did really enjoy them and have read them more than once. So this book was a huge disappointment. It is hard to escape the conclusion that it was a rushed out job to cash in on the show.

TOC, there were three novels - Exile, Deadly Games and Heat Wave. I think the author's full name was Michael J. Friedman. As I say, they were 'young adult' orientated so they were never going to be deep. <g> But, yes, they were lightweight but good fun and I thought they were enjoyable. The characterisations were spot on that I recall and I'd call them worth the money. If you're interested in such things, each book had a photo section in the middle. In the US version they were black and white and in the UK version, colour.

Although, for less, you can get a lot of fanfic which are worth even more, of course. No novel is as good value as online fanfic imo. <g>

You can find the details on them here , but they are pretty rare and OOP now, I think. Ebay might be your best bet if you want them and you might have to wait a while.

LabRat

LabRat, thanks for the info about the Friedman novels! But, as you say, if they are nice but slightly juvenile and out of print and hard and expensive to get anyway, why bother when there are so many great stories right here which you can read here and now for free?

Ann

That's interesting because it wasn't at all clear in the encyclopedia whether the characters were still being used or not in contemporary comics. Oh, and the Flash counterpart is listed as Johnny Quick Man. How come the others get relatively cool names and he gets stuck with that one?

Yeah, and that's what stopped me in my tracks when I was skipping around through the book. Particularly since I think I was looking up Lois Lane references at the time I found the page on the Crime Syndicate. My little old brain almost couldn't handle the overload of implications . . . and possibilities. The #1 question being whether the writers on L&C had any inkling that there was an Ultraman/Superwoman combination in existence in the comics when they came up with the name Ultawoman.

Probably not. But still . . . we can dream, can't we?

And while we are talking about comic crossovers, one thing I've always been of two minds about is that L&C was stopped from making use of many of the "major" characters from the comics. Most notably Batman. Part of me does believe that that lack may actually be an important characteristic that gives L&C it's rather unique flavor, maybe even second only to Lois being an equal partner in flavoring the series. And probably the two things go hand-in-hand because keeping the series from being overrun with a multitude of other "super" beings certainly does help keep Lois front and center through all four seasons. OTOH, there are so many interesting comic book characters that we never got a chance to see the pair interact with while retaining their L&C personas and universe.

Of course, that's exactly what fan fiction is for, isn't it?