Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related Religion in Fiction?

Would it happen to be The Death and Life of Superman by Roger Stern? Superman dies, 4 others take his place, and Superman lives again by the end? Though I don't remember a whole lot of L&C interaction in the novel.

All religions/cultures lead to "odd places" if one thinks about it. Some are more unfamiliar to us (depending...) than others which is why I think that a lot of care needs to be taken when changing a character's belief system to one that isn't the norm (and more likely to be seen as "odd").

alcyone

Karen, that's it! Thank-you No, there wasn't a lot of L & C interaction until the last part of the book - it's a Superman story really.

Guess my cultural bias was showing when I implied that sibling intermarriage was "odd".

c.

Edit: just checked that link, Arawn - looks really interesting. Odd that there's no section on L & C but there is for Smallville. But maybe I'll find some references once I start reading through it.

The religion of Lois Lane link covers a bit of L&CtNAoS.

Beethoven's mention of Dan Brown - as s/he indicates, be careful where you get your 'facts'. Acquiring 'facts' from someone else's fiction is downright dangerous. Personally, I trust Andrew Greeley's take on RC because he is a priest. (He spins a damn good tale as well.)

But generally, unless you have a character who is a 'fanatical' follower of his/her faith, a character isn't likely to get into deep religious discussions unless this is a key element to your story. (Humorous incidents in Sunday School not withstanding.) It will be a more subtle thing, like a character crossing themselves (RC or Anglican) after a prayer, or an older person sniffing at 'Papist frippery', or even a comment like 'I don't do Christmas.' The little Eastern European girl who refuses to wear slacks to work even when it's part of the uniform... as I said, subtle things. (All of these examples are RL, BTW. All comments from people I've worked with over the years.)

LOL! I didn't realize when I wrote the comment that it could come off as a cultural relativist defense of incest.

alcyone

It also brings up the opposite - when readers (particularly those who don't follow that religion) feel the fiction is written entirely or mostly in order to promote that religion, show it as "right" and good and the one true way. And sometimes fiction is.

I have no problem with the Catholic church (or any other, but it's usually Catholic in American movies because it's big, powerful, old, structured, and at least vaguely familiar to most viewers/readers) portrayed with evil and corrupted higher-ups trying to keep the truth from getting out. Seen it in some entertaining movies. Also have no problem with the movies I've seen where it's the one true way and people are led to it by saintly/angelic figures. But I'm not Catholic, and that makes a difference. (For the record, I'm fine with evil US government behind conspiracies, too - or any powerful entity depicted as evil, really). For me, fiction is fiction, and, as long as it's not too preachy (ie, detracts from my enjoyment by telling me I have to be like "X"), I'm good. Others, particularly religious (or particularly atheist) people, feel quite differently about religion in fiction. You just have to prepared for the wide range of possible responses you'll get. Though you have to be careful, I definitely shy away from saying "don't offend anyone" - no matter what you write about, you're likely to offend someone, so you can't let that stop you. I guess, if you have a realistic setting, then the key is in being accurate. Respectful is good too, but accurate is probably the most important, IMO. If you have a fantastical setting that already isn't really accurate to the real world, then you have more leeway.

From the link Dandello posted:

Uh, seriously? Did the person who wrote that watch the same show I did?

I never really noticed her to be religious, myself. Church weddings (though not the real one), and celebrated Christmas in a secular fashion. Other than that, I don't recall being religious. Standard Christian background of much of the US, but that's all. Pretty standard for lots of tv characters, really.

Neither did I. That was my point. She was never portrayed as "overtly religious" in my opinion and neither was Clark. We didn't really get to know anything about their political convictions, either (though I have my suspicions and ideas on which views they might hold).

I know that was your point - I was just agreeing. I don't really have my suspicions on what views they might hold beyond that neither of them have a problem with the drinking of alcohol, neither seems to attend church regularly, neither is condemning of premarital sex (though certainly worth noting that they decided to wait for their first time together), and both seem to me to believe in a higher power.

Amazing. I leave this thread alone for one day, and suddenly it's busier than an airport on holidays.

Well, what I was actually referring to was the comics/shows' treatment of the metaphysical. DC seems to hold the position, "If you believe it, then it's true." Perhaps the phenomenon could be best summed up by this one scene from the movie Oh God:

A young guy has met God in person, and finally convinced others of this fact. A group of theologians send the kid a list of questions to ask, one of which is "Is Jesus Christ your son?"
God (played by George Burns) answers, "Jesus is my son. Buddah is my son. Mohammad is my son. Everyone in the world is my son." (Or words to that effect, in essence).

It seems like Hollywood is run by Unitarians.

That's because Christianity is Catholic
Really, I don't know why, and the site linked above doesn't seem to know either, but it seems to put forth a few guesses. It's an addictive wiki for TV tropes and idioms, so click at your own risk.

I'm so glad y'all joined in to discuss this; and even better, there's no flames in sight! (knock wood...)

I understand the concept of treading lightly, as it were. But this is definitely something to think on, since fear of offending has killed many of the stories I've never written... *sigh* It's a thin, difficult line, isn't it?

The 'Adherents' site we've all be looking it at is basically fan-fiction. (Although they might object to the term being applied to them.) And as with many writers working from other people's sources, one little throwaway line in the original (like Lois mentioning the 7 Deadly sins, or her recognizing the Archbishop of Metropolis on sight) can have scads of meaning - many times more meaning than the original writer intended. Sometimes all it is is a 'feeling' about the character.

To Eliot Maggin, the '70s Lois 'felt' RC. Others think the more current comic book Lois still 'feels' RC.

Frankly, I don't get that feeling off of any of the characters in LnC. I can't see Martha as a 'church lady'. But that's just me.

When I read comics in the sixties, they never seemed religious to me. The Superman comics from the 30s, 40s and 50s that are reprinted and sold as collector's items also don't give off any sort of religious vibes. This reminds me of something I once read online, a blog claiming that Americans are a lot more religious now than they were during most of the twentieth century. I think that is true. When you watch really classic American movies, movies with John Wayne or Clark Gable or Marilyn Monroe or Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, or almost any big star at all, you never get the feeling that the movies are trying to make a religious point. They never talk about the significance of praying, of having faith in God, of trying to live like a good Christian etc. I don't think there is a single really classic American movie made in 1920-1960 where the closing scene shows us the hero (or heroine) kneeling, praying and thanking God. Back then, no major film stars got involved in movies about Jesus, the way Mel Gibson directed The Passion of the Christ some years ago. And consider Elvis, who died in 1977. It has been pretty well established that there were few things Elvis loved better than relaxing by singing and playing gospel music with his friends. Elvis grew up in the deep South and went to church a lot as a kid. Yet when he was asked, after he had become a star, if he was religious, he never answered with an unequivocal "yes". He only ever admitted that he loved gospel music. I think that if Elvis had been alive today, when it has become so much more important to show one's religious colors in America, he would definitely not have hesitated to call himself religious.

So personally I'm convinced that "classic Superman" - Golden Age Superman from the thirties and forties, Silver Age Superman from the fifties and sixties - was not someone who was "religious" at all. Remember that he was created by two Jewish kids, Siegel and Shuster. Would they have made Superman (or Clark Kent) a church-goer? Hardly.

And have you considered why Siegel and Shuster decided to name Superman's arch-enemy Lex Luthor? Isn't that a strange name? 'Lex' is Latin for 'word', so Lex Luthor can be thought of as 'the word of Luthor'. But then who is Luthor? And what kind of evil word(s) did this Luthor speak?

I googled 'Luthor', and the first ten pages referred exclusively to Superman's arch-enemy (with the possible exception of two weird sites about "Rex Luthor", which I couldn't open). It's not as if "Luthor" seems like a name that Siegel and Shuster would just have picked out of a hat.

However, there is a name that resembles Luthor and is very famous. That is Luther, Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, who indeed spoke (and wrote) a lot of words! Is it even possible that Siegel and Shuster might have been obliquely referring to Martin Luther when they named Lex Luthor? I think it is. Luther was scathing in his criticism of Jews. He claimed that since the Jews received the first Covenant between God and humanity on Mount Sinai, they ought to have been the first to embrace the new Covenant between God and humanity through Jesus Christ. Although Martin Luther was most certainly not a Nazi and arguably not even truly anti-Semitic, some people have claimed that his harsh criticism of the Jews helped create the sort of dislike of Jews in Germany that was necessary to usher in Nazism. What if the Jewish Siegel and Shuster felt that way? What if their paragon of evil, Lex Luthor, has a name that really refers to "the (anti-Semitic) words of Martin Luther"? Remember that Siegel and Shuster created Superman just after Hitler had taken over in Germany, and Lex Luthor made his first appearance about a year after World War II had started. What if "Lex Luthor" aka "(words of) Martin Luther" was a kind of clever way to refer to Adolf Hitler? After all, Hitler certainly also spoke a lot of words!!

I'm definitly not implying that Siegel and Shuster were trying to show that Lex Luthor was in any way like Martin Luther or Adolf Hitler. Classic Lex Luthor was a mad scientist, not a politician or a theologian. And he wasn't much of an orator or a demagogue at all. But names are magic and loaded with connotations. Just the other day I read that there are people in America who can't bring themselves to vote for Barack Obama, because his name reminds them too much of Osama bin Laden! Obama - Osama! And if the connection between Lex Luthor and Martin Luther is in any way true, then that certainly explains why Clark Kent, if he has been thought of as Christian at all, has been assumed to be a Catholic, not a Protestant!

To summarize, I firmly believe that "classic" Superman was not a religious character. Neither was classic Lois Lane or classic Jonathan and Martha Kent. Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster would have had no interest in making their hero a Christian, and they could hardly make him popular by turning him into a Jew. Besides, the early and mid 20th century was not a strikingly religious time in America. This was not a time when people fought for school prayer or for the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. This was not a time when America's future seemed to hinge on its citizen's belief in God. And this was not a time when those who created movies or TV series or comic books or other forms of entertainment sent their heroes to church or made them kneel down in prayer.

Ann

So do you think there was no religious content or do you think there was a statement of Martin Luther as a villain? Because I'd call that religious content (albeit disguised).

While I'm not saying it's not based on Martin Luther, I'd find it odd unless you can give me similar religious basis for other villains' names, since Luthor was not originally Superman's arch-foe (from my understanding it was Ultra-Humanite, but Luthor replaced him after an artist error drew him bald during his fourth appearance, I think) so I don't know why he'd be singled out for a symbolic name like that when others weren't.

But he didn't get a first name until 1960 - 20 years after he was introduced, so the "word of" element doesn't really work there when considering what Luthor means (symbolically) to me, because I don't think the first name was conceived of when the character was created (though it was Siegel who wrote the issue that gave him his name in 1960). Really I think they named him that mostly for the alliteration.

And by 1960, Superman was definitely already in his mainstream, law-and-order, boyscout state that is recognizable today (though to a greater extreme really - it was the Silver Age and the storylines could be frightening)

I think you meant 20th Century.

There's no evidence that Siegal or Schuster had any intentions of making a religious statement or having religious overtones anywhere in their creation. (Aside from the obvious - that Superman was a refugee who made good in the U.S.)

The religious interpretations are later. Maggin admitted to adding religious upbringing to the backgrounds of the characters. Other, more recent writers have added religion to the mix. Superman had a priest as a spiritual adviser.

You know, I've often seen/read/heard comments about Superman being the ultimate immigrate. And I understand that. It fits the time period. And yet, reading the early Golden Age comics (and I'll admit that I've only read a few), I don't really see it. Being from an alien world seems nothing more than a plot-device to give him super powers - because humans don't have super strength or speed. I mean, he was the first comic superhero, the first one with powers, and this just seemed their method of giving him powers to me. I like the ultimate immigrate idea, but I don't so much see that motif. Though certainly there was the less law-and-order activities that were for the poor (like when he tore down a slum so better housing would be built) and stood up for the oppressed and that sort of thing. But I don't know enough of the time period to know if some of these things might be more closely associated with immigrants than with just poor people as a whole.

Not to go off topic or anything, but that last post reminded me of a webpage I encountered where the person argued that Superman was the ultimate class hero. It compared him with other superheroes and found most come from wealthier backgrounds.

alcyone

Well, you gotta be able to afford the toys...

Thanks, I fixed that.

Well, I think that if Siegel and Shuster only referred to religion when they gave an important villain a name that might refer to Martin Luther, then that doesn't mark them as religious in my book. If anything, it suggests to me that they did not much like religion.

I had no idea that Lex Luthor didn't get his first name until 1960, or that Superman's arch-enemy was first named the Ultra-Humanite. But that just underscores what I already thought about Siegel and Shuster - they were not religious kids, but rather starry-eyed sci-fi geeks, who loved fantastic new inventions. But they also loved classic stories about super-strong heroes, and I have indeed read an interview with Jerry Siegel where he said that he wanted to create a hero who was like Hercules or Samson(!), only still more fantastic. So Jerry Siegel certainly knew something about the heroes of the Old Testament! I find it quite probable that he and Joe Shuster may have disliked Martin Luther because they regarded him as anti-Semitic as well backward and conservative. But Siegel and Shuster were no theologians, and they were not into religion. If they named Luthor after Luther, which is something I can't prove, of course, then they probably did so because they disliked Martin Luther in a general way, not because they had any interest in systematically attacking religion.

And that still means that Superman was originally a non-religious creation, or at the very, very least, that he was not created as a Christian character.

Ann

WOW,
1. I've certainly learnt a lot of super-hero history from this page (re Luthor etc.)

and 2.

I guess that this was largely my point...
Dan Brown knew that he was going to offend billions of people with his books, and so I guess because such offence was intended 100%, this may be the reason he can sleep at night.... and also how many Hollywood people etc. can produce movies and books which are done in a way that portrays the church as a villainous/ scandalous institution who's sole prerogative is to

I have no problems in general with regards to religion and fiction, and I realise that writing fiction can be an ethically challenging experience as one ponders the likely reactions by the readers, but the important thing would be to acknowledge this before one starts to write so that the process of researching the material and your end result could be as accurate as possible in its portrayal of the lives of the religion

sorry for the spiel but in my ethics classes at uni I often am fronted by portrayals of the RCC as this Naziesque dictatorship (with regards to abortion practises in the west) I HATE being called by my fellow students on one hand a gullible maggot/sheep or on the other a murderous fiend who actively tries to push down the plights of women forcing them into roles of insubordination, and placing guns to their heads if they don't have 10 babies each don't ask me which is worse within a philosophical debate I cannot tell

now I know that looks ridiculous, but that is how some of my ethics "debates" ended at a secular university... although this was not the opinion of the university itself, it was hard to come out of that evening without feeling upset (to say the least)


so in essence: no I do not think that authors should steer clear of controversy just because it may offend. And nor do I think that it is their duty to do everything they can in order to avoid offence

But I do think it is their Duty to ensure that any Religious facts (including opinions in light of the facts...) that they write about are accurate from the point of the Religion in question...

Where Dan Brown failed in his duty as an author was that he reported total lies about Opus Dei (in particular) and the Church in general as FACT, he was irresponsible when he went into the media and reportedly refuted his claims to be based on the truth (which he could not back up) and subsequently caused waves of hatred and prejudice to be instigated around the world...
there has been a culture (in Australia at least) for politicians to react to any hint of Opus Dei as if it were a secret sect who (I don't know, this next bit is made up) are high up in the scandals behind the cover-up of some unknown thing of terrible consequence (WHICH THEY ARE NOT)... so now a great many people within Opus Dei are in effect silenced from speaking out politically because every time Opus Dei is mentioned, Brown is in the next sentence, and the cycle goes on....

In reality these people who join Opus Dei are hard working, self-sacrificing people who give every ounce of their being into HELPING OTHERS.... spoken through personal experience, even though I am not a member, I have a lot of close friends who are...