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

Sometimes I get a nifty-cool idea for an elseworlds/Alternate Universe, like one where Clark is a Catholic priest, or a Muslim, or something. The ideas and the possibilities intrigue me, yet before I even start typing, I get weirded out.

From when I was little, the idea of handling real religions in a fictitious setting just seemed strange to me. I don't know if I can explain it. Combining fact and fiction in this manner just seems wrong, somehow.

Does anyone else ever feel this way?


ETA: Just A Reminder-- The topic is "Real Religions in Fiction". Talking about 'real religions in real life' can get ugly.

*sigh*...poor episcopalian Usenet guy...they never found his head...

...Okay, I made that up. But the point still stands.

For me, religion in fanfic has to be dealt with carefully. It has to be in character, to suit the character. I can think of some characters where not mentioning their religion or having them expressing religious beliefs opposite to those they have on the show is a problem. For example, Booth is Catholic. Although we don't see a lot of his religion on the show (or didn't when I watched - I'm waiting for the DVDs to see most of season 2 because my reception of FOX is awful), it is shown to be a pretty big part of him. So the respect in churches, respect towards prayer, and freaking out at Jesus being compared to zombies is to be expected, and needs to be remembered when writing fic. (On a side note here, I was very impressed with how the character was done. It was nice to see a character that plainly had some strong religious beliefs, but was not defined wholly by them, did not feel the need to bring it up every episode, etc.)

OTOH, most characters on tv today are not affiliated with any religion. Secular celebrations of Christmas is the most you get for most of them. So giving them any strong religious belief seems OOC in fic.

For Superman, I think it's more difficult to give him a religious affiliation, even in AU fic (where you don't have to worry about OOCness). I think this is because Superman is representative of the masses, is a symbol to us all, is there to serve us all, etc. And when you give him a (strong) religious affiliation, you almost slice that segment down. He becomes representative of or symbolic to that group rather than the whole world. It narrows his focus from humanity to a segment of humanity. Probably wouldn't be an issue if he were not-deeply-religious Muslim/Catholic/etc. (really wouldn't make his behaviors much different than they are on the show), but certainly would be if he was a religious official of any religion or was an extremely religious person, IMO.

I suppose religion in fiction doesn't bother me in general, but when it comes to fanfiction where there's already a general character layed out, I think it depends on the characters. I don't think it's disrespectful when the beliefs are portrayed appropriately, but I personally don't care if Clark goes to church every Sunday because it's something the show never ran with...

JD

Took me a minute to figure out Booth *g*. Finished my Bones marathon last week and am on Criminal Minds now... am almost all caught up *g*.

There is some mention of it in S2 - there's an ep that takes place in a Catholic church - not totally, but that's where the body is and so it comes up quite a bit. But, you're right, it's not overbearing - though he does cross himself a few times when Bones says something he deems... inappropriate? Sacreligious? Whatever term you want to use. But again, not over the top.

However, though Booth does seem to be a practicing Catholic, he doesn't seem to hold to all the... is tenets the word? He has no problem [that we see] with sleeping with women he's not married to [though I don't recall a truly casual/one night stand type thing]. I'm not quite sure how that plays in to it...

[I had a whole bunch here typed about L/C but it wasn't coming out right and my head hurts so... ].

Anyway, Bones does seem to do a pretty good job with it overall.

Carol [who spent almost 5 hours today hunched over a printer and can't think now...]

Yeah, sorry, guess I should have mentioned the show title.

Well, very few characters (or real live people) actually obey every tenet of their religion - at least here. You have the ideal - and then you have what you expect of yourself and other church-going folk. And then, of course, there are the hypocrites. And the ones who do their best to live up to the ideal, too, though those are rare, because it takes a lot of work to attempt perfection.

But Booth has a definite belief in heaven and hell and wants to go to heaven (and for Bones to, too - loved that line) and is quite uncomfortable with the inappropriate/sacrilegious behavior you previously mentioned. He may no be deeply religious, but he's definitely religious, and that's uncommon on tv today (or on old tv, from what I've seen).

Referencing the possibility of AU!Clark - I don't think I'd be interested in a deeply religious Clark, for the previously mentioned reason of it associating Superman with a section of humanity instead of humanity as a whole (though some would certainly say he's already associated with one section more than most, so that's your own interpretation). The other thing being that I'm not really big on AUs, anyway, unless they really do something different.

I'm reading a Supes AU now with the world under siige and Superman's greatest gift to the world is his hearing (and that was an "oh, wow" to me, given his powers - really drove home just how different the world was) due to the circumstances they are in. The reality they are in is so different and the characters are different to match that reality (much like a nice fic here wherein Cat and Lois utilize blackmail to get harassment laws passed/enforced - but less humorous). And that's the key to a good AU - making the characters enough like ours to make us want to keep reading, but enough different that we definitely know they aren't ours (and they have to fit in their worlds, and that is a beautifully-crafted world that they fit in).

So I guess that'd be the selling point to me - is the story AU only because Clark is a different religion (perhaps a different nationality?) or is the reason he's a different religion or a more religious person part of the world around him being different or a different backstory that somehow contributes to something bigger than just him being different? Both types of stories have their merits, but I'd be more a fan of the latter, because of the kind of AU's I like (whole world being different v. characters being different or being the same with different jobs or meeting later or whatever). If it's all about Clark being different than he is here, then he needs to be really different. Whatever religious belief he holds has to affect how he sees things and make him a different person than our Clark. You can't just say "he's exactly the same, except he's a priest." I definitely think it's absolutely fine to include religion in fiction, and would be fine for Clark in an AU fanfic, if someone wanted to work at it (as long as the author knows the religion they are talking about - elsewise they could end up depicting the religion wrongly, and I think that'd be a can of worms).

It's a delicate balance when dealing with Superman, as he's powerful enough to be considered a god by some. And it's that he doesn't set himself up as one that makes him such a hero. Actually, I could see a scenario where Clark comes to religion as a sort of fashion where he reminds himself he isn't God, can't do all this, reminds himself of what God is, and what he isn't if you wanted to keep his background similar to our Clark's.

I kept staring at it going "booth, booth, booth..." trying to remember - I'm not quite coherent .

I understand what you're saying about Booth [and religion in general]. Let me give a 'for instance' though... My dad was raised in a very strict Assemblies of God household [you didn't drink root beer because it was beer...]. I was raised not quite as strict [but playing cards... even for solitaire... *whew*!] and am not as strict, though there are certain things in particular I'll do my best to pass on to my kids.

Perhaps it's just where/how I was raised, but the 'no sex outside of marriage' one was a biggie. Dad frowns on drinking at all too [even my sister's wine coolers, but I don't like the taste anyway], but it's 'less' than the other [not that one sin is more or less than another - but you know what I mean... ] Maybe it's just how I was raised - and I know drinking doesn't have the stigma with Catholics as it does with many Protestants, but that's an example.

Anyway - yes, to this point, I do think Bones does a pretty good job with it [though part of me would like to see them address the issue - even if it's just Bones saying something about it when questioning his beliefs just... because, you know... *g*]

Anyway - I'm not sure what I'd see for Lois, but I could see Clark being raised in a church of some sort in Smallville. I think Islamic or Buddist or something would be harder to accept given where he's raised, unless it's something he found in his travels, you know? Catholic maybe for Lois - that seems to be the 'standby' for most TV shows [except maybe 7th Heaven]. Many TV shows have those who claim to at least be Catholic [Romano's in Everybody Loves Raymond, Joey in Friends [though he doesn't really claim to practice, just mentions his 7 Catholic sisters from time to time], several soaps, etc.] It seems if there is a religion mentioned regularly at all, it's Catholicism... I wonder why that is...
Carol

This is a fascinating discussion. I have to quote this:

Because it's close to how I feel about the matter. When I look at AUs (which is a fraught genre to begin with, right?) what strikes me is why the differences are there. Is it something to contribute to plot? If it doesn't there's a risk that it might sound gratuitous. That it's something that calls attention to itself as being somehow titillating. Normally a little of that is permissible (or even desirable ), but the fact that it's religion might complicate matters in the fic's reception.

For instance, in some soul mates motif thing, it'd be interesting to see Clark in a different culture following a different set of beliefs (so say I dunno, ancient Egypt--not to ruffle any feathers). How does that affect the characters?

It's a complicated thing. But it does have the potential to be extremely interesting and thought provoking. Research would be key in any case.

My two cents.

alcyone

Because there are so many of them?

Actually, I suspect it's because everyone is a least familiar with Catholicism while with Protestants its harder unless the writer is really familiar with the denomination.

According to comic book canon Clark was raised Methodist but quit going to Sunday service when his super-hearing came in. Martha was a church-goer. There is some evidence that Lois was raised a Catholic.

The Religious Affiliation of Comic Book Heroes

Mixing religion in fiction makes me deeply nervous. Fictional universes are generally created without an active deity of any sort -- people may mention God, but He doesn't actually ever do anything and it's up to people/characters to save the day, etc. I can understand why; they don't want to get dragged into theological arguments. Not to mention avoiding the deus ex machina problem. But when it's established that way and then a particular fic says, in essence, "but what if God really does exist?" then that's a big leap and is so easy to get wrong.

I may be overly sensitive on the topic. My husband likes it when a show treats Christianity (and religion in general) with respect -- like when Babylon 5 has priests or preachers as supporting characters. True, they're portrayed as very decent, hard-working, good-willed people... but they don't display any spiritual power. JMS is an atheist, so I guess I'm happy that he's treating the matter with respect, but still... it's like a pale imitation of the real thing. "Hey, those religious types are really nice people, and if they want to believe in that hocus-pocus, I'm cool with that, but come on, it's not, like, *true* or anything."

And then there's the first Superman movie. Hubby likes to point out what he sees as parallels to Jesus -- Jor-El so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to save it, etc. -- but that just makes me grind my teeth and act real hostile.

PJ

Tzigone, is it Shatterfall that you're reading? Fabulous story. I just wish the author would update more often!

I personally will read any interesting, well-written L&C story, whether it features religion or not. I imagine that religion isn't something you see a lot of in fanfic because it can be a sensitive subject, but so is deathfic, so if you want to write it - write it!

Lisa (who has spent many hours cogitating on the Superman-as-a-Christ-figure allegory)

I remember someone posting on this a while back on another board. Called Jor-El a liar. Sure, you're sending your son here to show us the way - has nothing to do with the fact that your planet is about to blow up.

Really, the parallels were a bit more with Moses in the early comics - Kal-El was sent away to save Kal-El's life, not to save humankind. And that's found in various myths and folk tales, too.

Yes, it is, and I love, love, love it. Best fic I've read in a long time. One of the best fics I've ever read. Despite the contradictions in timeline (Superman says he's known Luthor as a scientist for 15 years, but then we hear that 15 years ago (or maybe 17, since time passes in the story) Luthor was 14. One reference says no journalist has been jailed under the Good Citizen act in a decade and another says Lois was protecting her people from it recently.) But still wonderful. The world itself is so fantastic, so real and the characters are enough like ours and yet fit in that world so well, with their weariness and sometimes passivity (compared to our characters). Oh, and the perspective it's written from is so limited, and yet it works so well. I love it. I can talk about it for ages and and ages just talking about all the cool stuff in that story and how it all fits together to make such a great whole.

Yup - there are quite a number of us out there who think that Jor-El (at least the movie one) was a real piece of work. The LnC one wasn't much better - he sent his kid off to Earth, but apparently with the expectation that he was going to grow up and be blindly obedient to the Kryptonian cause?

As for adding religious views to fictional characters - like any other attribute, it can add to the character's background, filling in blanks, giving so insight into how the person was raised, how they view the world. Adding religious background, or even religious thoughts to a character doesn't mean you have to get metaphysical or have a deity as an active character.

Nothing compared to the Smallville one, though. I really thought he was going to be revealed as Zod or Eradicator. But it seems we're supposed to accept it as "tough love" - yeesh.

Definitely agree with you there. Just because a character has faith or religious beliefs doesn't mean their deity has to be actively involved. It's just another facet of the character. Sometimes a strong one. But that doesn't mean that whatever deity they worship has to do anything. The story can be about a character with faith without being about the being they have faith in.

It's one of my favorite fics. I love the characters the author creates (they are so unique, so complex and fascinating) and her prose is absolutely gorgeous, stark and magnificent. Her style is unlike anything I've read, Superman-related. I liked her other one loads too (Eating Me Alive?...and it's funny because I'm reminded of the quote from Lucy-as-a-nun there, the "sheep from another flock"), but I think Shatterfall is better. Lois' grief in one of the earlier parts feels so palpable. I also wish she updated more often.

alcyone

random thoughts:

Interesting observation. It never occurred to me that the "spiel" by the characters was Religious but instead as a reflection of a moral and ethical code. (Not saying that those who are Religious lack moral and ethical codes, however. )

Perhaps because the Roman Catholic Church has been such a powerful lobby group?
The non-wedding in HoL was in a Catholic Church, but since Luthor planned that wedding, that decision probably says more about him. Btw, I always thought the similarity of the names Luthor and Lucifer were interesting. On the other hand there's Martin Luther so who knows?

The ancient Egypt idea could lead to some odd places - didn't the pharoahs of ancient Egypt believe that they must marry their sisters?

Both Shuster and Siegel were the sons of Jewish immigrants - I wonder if their religion influenced their work in any way?

c. off to check out Shatterfall )
edit: Okay, checked it out - the content is interesting but not dissimilar in tone and type of plot from a few fanfics on the archive. But what really impressed me was the writing - here and there, a phrase that seems on the surface to be purely descriptive of something physical carries hints of larger themes and insights. And sparely done. Good use of dialogue, too.

It reminded me, in tone and characterization, of a book I read about 10 years ago - can't remember the title - Superman is dead but by the end he has returned, defeated his enemies and reunited with Lois Lane. This book was not L & C: tNAoS (nor is Shatterfall accrding to the author) but set in the comics universe.
Vague description, I know but does anyone know the title?

But, warning: Shatterfall is a wip, so whole lot of trust (faith ) involved in picking it up. Btw, I didn't notice that it had a religious theme at all - what did I miss?

c.

No religious themes there that I noticed (but I am a literal person and must be banged on the head with symbolism to notice it), just wound of bringing it in when talking about AUs since the opening post of this thread references AUs and I went from specifically referencing religion in AUs to how distinct characterization in AUs should be and brought up that one as an example of good AU characterization (IMO) - I have an inability not to wander from the topic.

By the way TOC, there is a particular aspect about Shatterfall that I think you'd like.

As a practising Catholic I have to warn you all that, even though most people THINK that they know what the church is on about everything, a lot of what is published is absolute rubbish, so I would be very careful when you guys write that your facts are checked, double checked, and even ask the opinion of friends etc. to ensure your material is correct.... I mean Dan Brown is an excellent example of authors being totally insensitive and utterly insulting to all Catholics, but his impression of Opus Dei is absolutely 100 percent lies


YET FOR ANOTHER EXAMPLE in an academic setting,

I am currently studying a Master's degree in Bioethics, and my lecturer (who is a professor in medicine, philosophy, ethics and the history of all three...) gave a lecture with regards to the history of the Church's position on the moral status of the embryo and abortion etc. -----I WILL NOT GO INTO THIS IN DETAIL, as this is not a philosophical or ethical forum...

This lecture contained a very popular belief that the Church's position had "Flip-flopped" over the centuries,

NOW.... in the lecture I thought that this actually went against everything I knew on the subject, after being taught that the Church never changes her mind with regards to Doctrines...

so I looked it up, and sure enough, I found enough evidence from TRUSTED sources to back MY claim...
for my sources go to Catholic Culture.org
This is the title of the article
The Roman Catholic Church and Abortion: An Historical Perspective - Part I
sorry, couldnt get httml-link/ thingy to work


the long and the short of it is.....
Make sure that if you do site a religious opinion that you check with sites affiliated to the hierarchy of that religion (the Vatican, or the Local Bishops Association etc.,.,,,
so that you are not promulgating lies and speculation such as Dan Brown and my lecturer -----the latter, who did so innocently enough, please don't persecute him or anything----
The promulgation of these sort of misrepresentations of the religions is very damaging to the world because it is essentially aiding the promulgation of ignorance and also very disrespectful to the religious people as when they try to explain themselves they come up against walls of preconceived notions that they have to fight tooth and nail to get the truth known and hence their opinions respected

after checking out the SUPER-HEROES Religion page from above

it is interesting to note (given the anti-communist spiel of Hollywood between the 20's=90's
that DC and Marvel share around 8 heroes who are current communists/marxists
and a further 5 who identify as former communists

also on that page were at least 3 different "Jewish Supermen..."
plus two different Catholic "Supermen" from around the world (Not US publishers), but I didn't do a thorough search, only visual in 10 secs...

so I guess, along the lines of my pervious post, so long as you do what you want with the uttermost care not to get your facts wrong...

then the ficdom is all yours to create

Pam, around here it's considered a denomination *G* - of course, we live near the 'holy city' when it comes to AG. Our church is interdenominational [as I understand it - we believe denominations have a place but we choose not to be a part of one - we started going because of the pastor - I already knew him sort of - and stayed because they became family]. Our pastor was also raised Baptist, and actually raised here.

My grandpa was a preacher so maybe that has something to do with it. When I moved here to go to school, Dad wouldn't let me bring the playing cards even to play solitaire. He's absolutely scandalized that we play poker for *gasp* money! Not much but still... His new girlfriend has a glass of wine occasionally with her daughter's in laws [Catholic Italians] and even danced at her wedding - he refuses to go with her to one of those 'events'. He's already said he won't go to my sister's wedding [if there ever is one] if she does either of those.

As much as I love him [mostly], he is the extremely rigid, completely uncompromising, judgmental types that can give any religion a bad name - though he's better than some.

Back On Topic: if I read fiction with religion as a part of it, it tends to be by just a few authors I trust. I would likely read Erin's book even though it's Mormon [I think?] because I 'know' her, but I wouldn't seek out books about Mormons and may even avoid them [as in if I had two to pick from when purchasing, I'd probably pick the other something] just because it's not *my* beliefs and I don't have a lot of disposable cash or time for stuff like that. If I want to challenge my beliefs etc., it's unlikely I'll do it via fiction.

That said, I'll read just about any good story on the boards regardless of religious aspect - as long as the religious aspect is treated with respect - sort of like we talked about before with Bones.
Carol

It's a very interesting topic. and it can add enormously to a story.

For reference, Superman and religion and politics is a extremely good page.

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...

THE ACTIONS of Brown have precipitated in increased fear of a movement of people who are only there because they want to HELP others....

so long as authors are open and honest when they portray any figure of authority as involved in some sort of conspiracy theory their works would undoubtedly become a valuable to the community for their literary worth... but if they act in the way Brown did and use the controversy behind the lies as a method of free publicity (Brown made an fortune from the interviews and other media coverage that dealt with his works, saved millions on publicity adverts and made millions from the sales of the books bought by people who were interested in "finding out what the controversy is all about ....and why people are talking")

For me, a symbolic condemning of religion (specifics or in general) is bringing religious content into a story. Bringing it in in negative fashion, but still definitely including it.

Wonderful post beethoven

I've seen this debate so many times--it's used a lot to talk about why large groups of people do horrible things. I've seen it used in trying to explain why the Nazi state happened. Were the people just automatons or did they want a genocidal, fascist regime? I can see how if one's affiliations are brought into play (as in your case) it can leave one feeling attacked no matter how one looks at it.

You also said:

So then I gather that it's a matter of research and finding a figure/organization which is already questionable to avoid damaging their reputation and creating the situation Brown created for the real life members of Opus Dei.

I guess my question (purely speculative) would be then--in the abscence of such a figure (not specifically referring to the RCC but more generally), is how much more ethical would it have been to "make up" (in the Dan Brown case) an organization if one gets the 'background' of the religion right?

And no, I also don't think authors should steer clear of controversy and I agree with those that say that someone will always be offended especially when dealing with some heavy topic. But this is all theoretical. The practice of sitting at your desk and writing something just to wait for the shoe to drop is probably something else entirely.

alcyone

Tell me, Beethoven. As far as I know, the Pope says that "artificial contraceptives" (condoms, the pill, the Dutch cap etcetra) are absolutely forbidden and extremely sinful. Now imagine a married couple who can't make "safe periods" work. They either use artificial contraceptives and doom their immortal souls, or they abstain from sex, or they have perhaps ten babies even though they don't want to. Do you agree with the Pope that they mustn't use contraceptives, because that is a mortal sin, because the Pope says so? If you agree with him, then it seems to me that you really are saying that a married woman who is really fertile has no choice but to have ten babies if she can't persuade her husband to sleep on the couch, and if she doesn't want to commit a mortal sin by using birth control.

Of course, if you don't agree with the Pope that contraceptives are sinful, then the poor super-fertile woman's problems have nothing to do with you.

Ann

Uh, guys? Remember that nice rule about religious and political debate on the internet?

Let us not forget that *all* religion essentially boils down to an individual's own beliefs and actions. Some Catholics hang on the Pope's every word (I imagine) and others just tell him to shove it (in a matter of speaking). The same is true for every other group under the sun.

So if a woman has 10 kids, it's not Beet's fault regardless of response.

One last plea, before this thread becomes a controversy in its own right:
PLEASE Limit Discussion To "Depiction of Religion In Fiction".

Anyone who wishes to air views on relion itself in ideals and practices can write their thoughts down on a piece of paper and file it in the circular bin. Thank you.

Thank you QC...
I never intended my post to be an invitation to discuss any of these details here because frankly they HAVE been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, and I think they are particularly irrelevant to the majority of stories posted on this site....

even though the RCC openly preaches to all who will listen about the "evils" of artificial contraception, the Church NEVER openly condemns each and every individual... She has moved a long way from stoning the prostitute....


My posts were originally intended to merely point out to you guys the dangers that come from misinterpretations of commonly known (or not so commonly known) teachings ... I intended to point out to you guys that not all followers of the Church's teachings are ignorant slaves to some autocratic male dominated hierarchy that there are millions of people in Western nations who CONSCIOUSLY CHOSE to follow the Church and that we too are thinking individuals who were under no duress when we made our decisions....


so Ann please don't persecute me, however I for one want to point out that it is reactions such as yours which I object to... reactions which make it feel like I am an ignorant and gullible sheep because this makes me feel at one level insulted, but at a deeper level (I guess) I feel saddened that you think so little of my abilities to choose for myself that you have militarised your own life in order to "Protect me" from the "Evil Pope


by the way QC...
here in Australia a QC (Queen's Counsel) is (was) a high-ranking title given to barristers, sort of an honorary title given by the states to honour their achievements in courts of Law.... (It has been replaced by something else - I think SC or State's counsel- recently because of the whole republic debate...)

so congrats on earning your silks (silk robes are bestowed onto QC's or SC's)

Oooooh, silks!
Thanks, Beet!

--QC (Technically half Catholic, half Protestant, half Messianic, and half Other, so I sympathize. )

Now, who wants omelettes?
Or better yet, who thinks that it makes a significant difference which character is the practitioner of the religion-in-question, even if the story does not say if that person is right or wrong?

WOW, almost as bad as me
Out of 4 Grandparents


Mum's parents
D=Polish-Jew (Born in Poland-Emigrated during WW2)
M=Irish/Australian-Born in Oz, from Irish decent
they met here in Sydney....

My Father's Parents:
D=had a Polish mother and Greek Father-he was born in Poland

M-was born in Poland, had three polish grandparents
+ her maternal Grandfather who was from a town in the Alps somewhere on the Swiss-Italian boarder (pretty well half the town was Protestant and half Catholic- and it all had to do with the surname....the town had four surnames in total
A, B, A-B and BA...and you could basically tell the religion by the surname, only my ancestor was the wrong one apparently....


My Dad's parents met in Ghana of all places,
G'pa was running some family business (Polish airmen based in Canada used Ghana as a stop-over on the way from Canada to fight in Europe... thus his father set up some business there), and G'ma was working as Doctor, after moving to Scotland during the war and studying medicine in London after)
... they met in the emergency ward after G'pa had some motorbike accident or something...D was born there and they eventually came here after the changeover from colonial to African rule...

My parents met here in Sydney, and all of my G'parents have spent our entire lives instilling in us the importance of our heritage

Beethoven wrote:
I never read Ann's points as persecuting you at all, but rather as counters to the points which you had origiinally raised. As such they struck me as no more than part of the discussion.
And an interesting discussion it has been.

Btw, I've read The Da Vinci Code - a really good trash novel. Never violates the formual - keep your sentences short, your paragraphs not much longer, no chapter longer than 3 pages (at the very most!) and a cliffhanger wherever and whenever possible, plus a conspiracy theory involving a sensational topic - e.g. *the* Church, the Mafia. the American or Russian presidency. Also, a car chase would be nice.

I couldn't put it down .

Like many works of fiction, it takes bits of history as well as facts about current institutions and organizations and weaves a fictional tale through them. I don't think anyone believes that every novel she reads is totally fact.

As for the RC thing, well as someone who is married to a lapsed RC (of the Polish heritage variety:) ) and whose sister-in-law is stil a Believer (although of the birth control practising sort ) I've been in the middle of a few of these, uh, discussions Even I, debate-lover that I am, cringe in the corner.

Still it is an interesting question about Lois and Clark's religion. I'd never really thought about it until QC raised the topic.

But clearly Clark was willing to marry (the first non-wedding) in a church and so he must have been okay with the belief system behind it. As the guy who stands for "Truth, J + tAW" it would strike me as OoC for him to swear his marriage vows in a church, otherwise.

Which is a surprising conclusion - I think I rather vaguely thought he was an agnostic. I remember being surprised by that church (and such a grand one!) when we first saw it because of what it implied.

But as was suggested above I can see that Martha (and Jonathan) would have been a church goer - but perhaps for small-town community related reasons as much for religious ones. At any rate, were that the case, Clark would have gone to church as a kid with them.

I guess stories of comic book superheroes are really just contemporary myths and myths were often (always?) stories with religious sub-texts.

To tie this in with L & C fanfic - are there any fics that portray either Lois or Clark as church-goers or as being adherents of a religion?

c.

I seem to remember a Christmas fic that portrayed Clark as a church-goer... maybe Methodist? Something pretty common for Kansas. Couldn't tell you what it was, however. And it may not have been a Christmas short story, I just remember that Lois was in Kansas for Christmas and went to church with the Kents (and it was implied that they were real believers and regular church-goers, not just that they went for Christmas and Easter).

I'm not sure if this is because of my religious background, but unlike what seems to be the general consensus here, I've always thought of Clark as a Christian and a regular church-goer. Probably a mainstream Protestant, based on where he grew up (and I always forget the differences between the mainstream denominations). No, it's true that we don't see him go to church, but we wouldn't, necessarily, unless it was part of the story. And I certainly see his behavior and beliefs as consistent with Christianity, even though he doesn't state them outright. His stance for truth and justice, his willingness to sacrifice for others, his attitude about his powers and his choice to use them to help others, are consistent with what a Christian should do.

Would Clark being a Christian make him less of a symbol for the world? I don't know that I've ever seen him as a symbol for the world, per se, but for America. He was created as an American superhero, after all (speaking of the comic to some degree here). And a majority of Americans are Christian, or at least say they are, even if many of them aren't really practicing. In fact, something like a third of the world is Christian, more than any other religion, so if Clark was going to be something, I suppose it would be more representative.

Of course, I'd also *like* Clark to be Christian, so it's probably not shocking that I'm able to see that. Somebody who wants him to be agnostic or even atheist could surely see that in him as well, as long as his religion isn't clearly defined.

I thought the question "does it make a difference which character is religious" was interesting, because it certainly does. It would make much more of a difference, I think, Clark being portrayed such, than, say, Cat being apparently a lapsed Catholic (basing this on the fact that she went to a Catholic church for confession when she thought the world was about to end, but she may have just wanted to "confess"). While we see quite a few TV shows with a Christian (usually Catholic?) character or two, it's rarely the main or central character, unless that's what the show's about. I suppose it's less obtrusive in one character among a large cast or a supporting character.

(Gee, bet you didn't know meerkats were so long-winded, did you?)

/me jumps in and pounces the meerkat!

Hey Sarah!

As I read your post, I realized I agree with you to a degree. Perhaps too, it's how I was raised. Part of me thinks that it's very possible that we just didn't see him going to church etc. But then... they searched for a preacher - would they have had to if Clark in particular already had a home church? The other thing... again this probably has a lot to do with how I was raised, but it was clear that he wasn't necessarily opposed to premarital sex but that they chose to wait for reasons other than religious ones. It's not considered OOC for them to have sex before marriage - usually in the context of a loving committed relationship. There are others - such as Family Hour - where they have a one night stand, but it's not considered OOC. A one night stand isn't necessarily considered OOC for Lois, but generally is for Clark [generally, unless it's Lois].

Again - maybe it's just how I was raised b/c I know a lot of regular churchgoers who don't consider premarital sex a big deal anymore, but I do. They seem to see it as more of a social/emotional issue especially for girls rather than a religious one - if that makes sense? Be careful about having sex before marriage because it's more emotional for girls, don't want to get hurt, seen as loose, etc., rather than don't do it because the Bible says sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Anyway - I have to go take Christopher to the doctor b/c he lost 6oz this week and is back down under 8lbs at 3 months old...
Carol [who pounces the meerkat again for good measure]

Hmm, you make some good points about them searching for a preacher. I guess I was thinking more in terms of him having a home church in Smallville, but of course if he really was strong in his faith he'd have a church in Metropolis, too. There goes that theory. <grin>

I didn't know you had a new little one--congrats! Mine's at the early walking stage and getting in to *everything* now. It's great fun.

But the marrage marrage took place on a hill side, no church,pews, preacher, flower girl, or bride's maid in sight.Was that legit?
BW, Lois and Clark had a one night stand and I missed it?

A 'church' wedding does not require being in a building, it's a matter of who the officiant is, what church he/she is a member of and the service used. Outdoor weddings are done all the time.

But in the case of the hilltop wedding, Look at the license:

According to this, the wedding was a civil ceremony that took place at city hall and Mike signed himself as a 'Divine Representor'.

To me, this means that the ceremony was strictly non-denomational. (But then, Mike is obviously a supernatural being, possibly an angel.)

Here's a link to a larger picture: License

Check out Mike's signature at the bottom. The letters after it are 'ANG'. I always took that to indicate that he was indeed an angel. And doesn't he indicate at some point that he's Lois's guardian angel? Clark's? Sorry, haven't watched the episode in way too long, but I have a distinct memory of the term guardian angel being used early on. I could be making that up as I go along though.

That was one of the elements that I really didn't like about the whole concept of the wedding and that particular episode. The show had been nicely ambivalent about religion throughout and then suddenly we have God lending a hand to make sure Lois and Clark get married and guardian angels being sent down to smooth the way. Urgh. Sorry, but the entire concept wasn't for me.

Give me a nice, traditional wedding without the religious kinks any day of the week.

LabRat

I meant in fanfic. It's not considered OOC for Lois to have the occasional one night stand [though usually his choice not hers, ex: Claude, not like she's just being a 'player' or whatever]. It is generally considered OOC for Clark to have a one night stand, with the possible exception of Lois when they meet as late teens early twenties etc. Our Clark at least - a very different Alt/Else could maybe get away with it...

Yes - Sarah - new little guy is 3mos old! See post in OT for more info *sigh*.
Carol

I think he was everyone's guardian angel. I'm pretty sure Jimmy recognized him, too.

I didn't really care for the angel thing there, either. I don't care whether or not there's a religious aspect to any given show, just didn't think it really contributed anything. Plus, the angel didn't even bother to tell them they couldn't consummate the marriage - and you'd think he'd know about their souls.

I've read a few essays where people have delved into the that realm of thought. Enjoyable reads, however I can't remember any of it. I think Ann mentioned some of it.

I'm not religious and do feel uncomfortable with religion. However, I do find it interesting to study in an academic setting. I was Anglican for a few years ending at 4 or 5yrs. I guess I can't be 'undone' so I guess I shouldn't say "was".

Despite feeling uncomfortable with religion, I wouldn't in fiction. However I am so unaccustomed to having religion discussed or followed (beyond the few shots and mentions in LnC) so that would feel weird having it introduced more into the normal flow of the show.

If a story was posted where it didn’t follow canon (I’m never sure if I’m using that word correctly…actually I’ve never used it before) then it would be more believable to me.

Mike was cute I guess...but irritating. I never 'clued in' on the whole religion aspect though when it first aired. Me silly. I didn't mind the episode, but wasn't fond of Mike.

Gee I think I said that right….sorry tired.

As everyone probably knows, I'm not at all religious, but at the same time I find religion endlessly interesting to discuss. And even I admit that it isn't all bad!

In principle, I would be okay with an Elseworlds story which treats Clark as religious. (Obviously it would be in accordance with the rules of these boards to merge religion and LnC in an Elseworlds setting!) How I really would react to such a story would depend on what it actually had to say about religious Clark. Bottom line, would it turn Clark into the kind of character that kept showing up in the stories that my religious relatives gave me when I was a kid?

Let me describe a typical story that I was raised on. This one was about a boy and a girl, both around sixteen years old. One day the girl found Jesus and was born again, and she joyfully told the boy about it, asking him to open his heart to Jesus, too. The boy scoffed at her, in a way that rang totally false to me ("I don't believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Our Redeemer and Saviour!"). Having thus rejected Jesus, the boy instantly became a juvenile delinquent, starting to mug pensioners right away. He was soon caught and put in jail. But the girl pleaded with the judge to let her see the boy and pray with him. The judge relented, the girl got to see the boy, they prayed together, the boy cried and repented, the judge let him out, and the boy and the girl walked off into the sunset, singing and praying as the angels gathered in the sky above them. The End. I have to tell you that I didn't like this story, and if anyone writes an LnC fic which in any way resembles it, I'm not going to like that one, either! But still, it would clearly be within the rules to write such a story and post it here as an Elseworlds tale.

But the religious theme could be explored in more interesting ways in an LnC setting. You could explore ways in which Clark might try to cure his existential loneliness by trying to find a haven in religion. For example, he could become a regular church-goer and a loyal member of his congregation mostly so that he could feel that he was one of these people, that he belonged with them:



Look at this picture. Doesn't the dark-haired guy who can be seen pretty much in the middle of the picture look a lot like Clark? For someone like him, an orphan from another planet, it might feel very good and soothing to be surrounded by so many people and feel that he belonged there.

What if Clark was trying to find a spiritual haven and an explanation for why he is here at all, and an answer to what his mission on the Earth might be? He might become a spiritual seeker, seeking out different religions to see if there was one which could give him the answers he craved. When I was looking for an image to illustrate such a spritual quest, I came across this one:



As you can see, this is the cover of a book written by a man called Imam 'Abdallah Ibn 'Alawi Al-Haddad. That is an Arabic name, and the author is almost certainly a Muslim. I find it far more likely that Clark would try to find his answers within the Christian tradition than in any other religions, but still, it certainly is possible that he might turn to other religions for answers.

Let's consider another possibility:



What if Jonathan and Martha Kent had been stern, strict religious people? If Clark had been raised in such a home, that would certainly have affected his outlook on the world.

It seems to me that Americans often see their religiousness as a part of their patriotism. In comic book canon and in the Superman mythos in general, Superman has often been depicted waving the American flag.



What if he was shown holding the Bible as well as the flag? And in what ways would that change him and the role he played on the earth?



One possibility is that Superman could become a new prophet and a founder of his own religion. He could display his own strength and claim that God had given it to him, because he was God's chosen prophet.



This picture shows Samson using his God-given strength to defeat a thousand Philistines. Superman could show off his strength in a similar way and claim that God had given him his power, so that he, Superman, could show people the way to God.

To summarize, there are many different ways that religion might affect Clark Kent, and surely these questions could be discussed in fanfiction.

Ann

I sincerely hope that I will not be found guilty of hypocrisy over my last couple of posts......I certainly did not intend to sound hypocritical in any way

however, I admit that I suffer insistently from a serious case of what is known around here as the LANE BABBLE GENE....


Please Ann, forgive me for the vitriol, it was not you in person, nor your views that you expressed which I was objecting to


All I tried to do in these last posts was to point out the dangers of misrepresenting the other side....


I too, you may be surprised, enjoy a good suspense thriller....
Did you know before L&CTNAS my favourite TV show was the X-files.....

And while Brown may not be my favourite author, this is mainly due to his ethics as I have never read his works...
And yet I do have to give him some credit for his ingenious marketing strategies and abilities in creating a fast buck on a work which is arguable over his rights to intellectual property (re: the British law suit over breach of copy rights that he won, but it is still undeniable how similar the books are: Davinci Code and "The Search for the Holy Grail"


BACK TO THE TOPIC NOW

I had previously always thought of Lois as Episcopalian... not Catholic (re the super-heroes religions site...) because of her admittance that she had slept with Claude...
But I suppose that despite her contradictory nature when it came to being so riske' with her life and conservative with her body (do you understand that?) I felt the conservative nature of her treatment of sex in seasons 1-2 was more due to her relationship issues with her parents and claude etc. than her religious conservativeness, hence since the qualms she had had no bearings on religious angst, I thought she could not be Catholic as she would have had the whole "NO SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE" thing drilled into her from birth, and so she would be feeling a religious doubt as well???????


does that make sense as to my reasoning????

Very interesting topic. "Religion in Fiction." It's something that could be built into a master's thesis, should someone wish to take on the job, assuming that someone's faculty advisor approved it.

Any work, whether fiction or not, gets filtered through the lens of the author. For example, I recently read a book by the late Stephen Ambrose entitled "Undaunted Courage." It's a work which tells in detail the story of the Lewis and Clark expedition, but even more so, it reveals the character and personality of Captain Meriwether Lewis and his relationship with his co-leader on the expedition, William Clark, along with his relationship with then-President Thomas Jefferson. Ambrose goes into great detail to lay out the workings of Lewis's mind, discussing why he did certain things and why he did not do certain things, and even gives a vividly detailed account of the night Lewis shot himself to death in a roadside inn just outside Collinwood, Tennesee, on the night of October 9-10, 1806.

Why do I bring this up? Because it's apparent that Ambrose admired Lewis from the way the volume is structured. He thought very highly of Lewis's industry, his great personal strength and vitality, and his near brilliance in planning and executing the perilous expedition through the newly purchased Louisiana Territory (the expedition lost only one man, from illness, over nearly two years of constant hazard). At the same time, Ambrose deeply regrets the melancholy bent of Lewis's mind, which prevented him from receiving the credit he and the others of his company deserved.

Ambrose doesn't try to hide his conclusions about Lewis. And it wouldn't be difficult to find other historians who believe that the Lewis and Clark expedition was a Very Bad Thing for the nascent American republic and the native populations the expedition encountered.

My real point is that we all, writers and readers alike, view our input and output through certain lenses. Religion is one of them. We have to remember that The Powers That Be in network television and Hollywood movies rarely, if ever, portray religion in a positive light. They either ignore it, hoping that no one will notice that it's missing from the story, or they use it as a negative plot device, portraying religious adherents as either misguided but basically harmless dolts or dangerous fanatics. So we got the "ignore it" message in the L&C TV series. When Lois needed professional help, she saw a therapist (Dr. Friskin) instead of her pastor. Same with Superman. When Perry was so very depressed that a friend of his for many years ("Chi of Steel" and the Nazi episode) turned out to be far less than he'd believed, he didn't seek out spiritual help. When Cat went to confession during the Nightfall incident, the producers were ultimately trying to play the scene for a laugh when she propositioned the priest. (I thought that the scene really showed the hollowness and futility of her chosen lifestyle, so it wasn't all that funny to me.)

"Canon" shows us that neither Lois nor Clark had an active religious segment on their lives. As several have pointed out, both Schuster nor Seigel were Jewish by heritage, and in 1930's America, it just wasn't "fashionable" to be publicly Jewish if you were trying to sell something to the white people with money. So Superman was originally depicted without any active religious affiliations.

And any religious overtones regarding Luthor's name are probably coincidental. Lex's first name was introduced during a period of "LL" initial frenzy at DC comics which also gave us Lori Lemaris and Lucy Lane, among many others. Readers were subtly encouraged to collect such names. There was even a Jimmy Olsen story where Jimmy viewed a previously unseen film of Adolf Hitler where someone appearing to be his identical ancestor stood beside the dictator, so Jimmy traveled back in time to see who it was. Turned out it was him. He got himself hired as Hitler's spiritual advisor, warning him (too late) of Allied victories in the middle of the war. But he forgot to mention the attempt on Hitler's life in July of 1944 and was forced to flee for his life. A Lucy Lane lookalike working with the French resistance fired a pistol at two SS men chasing Jimmy out of a doorway, but she hit the decorative swastika above them instead and knocked two L-shaped pieces off, which fell on their heads and disabled Jimmy's pursuers. (She was either a crack markswoman or the luckiest pistol shot who ever lived.) He returned to the present to find that the film evidence of his trip through time had been destroyed when the projector (which he'd left on) had overheated and set fire to the film. And Jimmy was left ruminating over being saved by the initials "LL" once again, but never thinking about the paradox of viewing a movie about himself taken in the past before he'd time-traveled to make the movie possible. DC comics did a lot of that. Lex Luthor was just one example.

If an author wanted to add religion to a story, it would have to be a believable addition within the framework of these boards to be accepted here. We have members who are strongly religious (and not necessarily Christian), some who are agnostic or atheistic, and some who are indifferent. The main thing to remember is that Lois and Clark should be together unless there are reasonable and logical circumstances presented in the story to keep them apart. An excellent example is Becky Bain's Ad Astra Per Aspera, which explores what might have happened if Clark hadn't returned from New Krypton. I've read the story and I think it's outstanding, even though it's somewhat bittersweet. Others have read it and posted different reactions to it, some negative and some very positive. It depends on that lens I mentioned earlier, specifically the one which either does or does not allow the reader to see Lois and Clark happy with other life partners.

Religion is like that in that the reception of the story will depend on the lens through which the reader sees it. I have a partially finished L&C story where the Bible is used to educate one of the original characters on basic morality and the American legal structure, but I don't know that I'll ever post it because of some of the reactions I've seen to situations such as this. (I will mention that it's not a major plot point.) But I also don't wish to make people mad if I don't have to.

I, personally, can't imagine Jonathan and Martha living in a small Kansas town without being involved in some kind of church family. They might be Methodist, Baptist, Wesleyan, or Presbyterian, but one of the strong nuclear binding forces of Middle American towns like Smallville is the congregation one belongs to. They'd be a part of the group simply because that was where the group met.

So Clark would have gotten some of that through his parents and by association with the other kids. But when his powers began to appear, it's reasonable to assume that they would have withdrawn somewhat from the others in the congregation in order to protect Clark from discovery. They couldn't have separated themselves completely without become objects of curiosity, but they probably would have pulled back some, just to keep everyone else from finding out how odd their son was becoming.

Lois's background is far murkier. Folks in big American cities can live for decades without entering a church building except for weddings or funerals and they won't be marked as subjects for gossip. And a young adult's behavior isn't always an indicator of that person's religious upbringing. The teen pregnancy rate in the American Christian community is close to that of the non-churchgoing teens and has been for a couple of decades. The percentage of sexually active teens within Christian circles is also close to that of the non-Christian teen.

*(I admit that to our shame. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.)*

So Lois's lifestyle (her undefined relationship with Paul in college, her "friendship" with Patrick the mad Druid, her brief affair with Claude) doesn't necessarily give us any insight into her religious principles or beliefs. People often behave against their stated life precepts. If an author wishes to give Lois a religious bent, it should be a reasonable and logical turn, but I personally see no reason not to do so. As long as the story is entertaining - and isn't that why we read the stories posted here? - go for it! Make us believe it. Make us see that it's not only possible but the only way the story would work.

Most of all, let's have fun with it.

Damn, Terry, you did it AGAIN. I was about to write the exact things.

It is a fascinating subject and as a writer, I also try to flesh out my characters' backgrounds as much as possible in my head. Even when those elements don't end up in the story. I want to disagree with one point Terry made. I don't think Hollywood neglects religion because of deeply held animus. I think Hollywood generally tends to neglect religion because it's a hot button issue that could seriously cut out a segment of your viewership. It's also why characters in TV shows don't express strong political viewpoints, unless it is central to their character. It allows the audience to view those characters through their own lenses. Now, granted, the writer's lens is always going to inform the character, either consciously or unconsciously, but a good writer should be able to write a character whose views and opinions differ from theirs. But I think it certainly helps if the writer really tries to get to know the character's history and past experiences.

For example, I assume Lois is an Episcopalian. I mean, the Lanes are just so stereotypically WASP-y - the alcoholism, the emotional dysfunction, the patronizing perfectionism . But seriously, it is only in the last few decades that the old class/religion affiliations in the US have broken down. In the 60s and 70s, it was still very much the case that the well to do class was largely Episcopalian, especially in the Northeast. Episcopalianism was the religion of the Northeast elites. Thirteen of our 43 presidents were Episcopalians - the most well represented denomination, followed by Presbyterian at 11.

Lois's hobbies (including chess), the sports she plays (tennis and golf), her music preferences (jazz), her father's profession (a doctor), and her mother's obsession with status all point to the Lanes being well to do, not middle class. We know the Lanes attended church (unless Sam Lane got caught kissing Mrs. Belcanto in the church parking lot for some other reason) and I think to them, attending the right church would be just as important as belonging to the right club and sending their children to the right schools.

I don't see the Lanes as being particularly devout, but there are plenty of members of every faith who aren't particularly devout, so I don't think that tells us much about what Lois's particular faith is. I know plenty of a la carte Catholics and some very devout Episcopalians who attend church every Sunday and really judge every one of their actions by whether or not it advances their purpose of doing God's will on Earth. That being said, the Episcopalian church is more comfortable with doctrinal pluralism than many other faiths, so even if Lois were devout, I don't think that her failure to adhere to all of the tenets of her faith strictly would trouble her as much as it would a devout Catholic.

They gave us a lot of absolute gems when it comes to the Kents' history. We know that despite being from a segregated state (though not as rigidly segregated as the deep south), Jonathan and Martha marched for civil rights. We know that Jonathan told Martha's mother to "stuff a sock in it," and it apparently caused Martha to fall in love with Jonathan in the first place. We also know that Martha doesn't just march to the beat of her own drummer, she pretty much makes her own drums. No matter what religion Clark was brought up with, the Kents doubtlessly instilled in him not only a strong sense of doing what's right, even when it's not popular, but also doing what is right for him, even when it isn't always the expected or traditional thing to do.

I agree with Terry that church is an integral part of life in small towns and think that Methodism, which is often cited as the religion Clark was brought up with, makes sense given the geography and timing. I also agree that the Kents probably withdrew a bit from church when Clark began developing his powers (in order to protect him from discovery), but they wouldn't have stopped going entirely.

I tend to see Clark as a 'seeker.' His very existence isn't well explained or even accepted by most traditional faiths, at least not explicitly so. He's traveled the world and has seen a lot of what others believe and what they have faith in, so I assume that whatever Clark believes, he's not terribly dogmatic about it. He probably believes that there is a lot of value and a lot that can be learned from other people and their ways of life.

I really dislike the 'Superman as Savior' motif and Jor El loving the world so much that he sent it his only begotten son, nonsense. Jor El sent Kal El to Earth in order to save his only begotten son from Krypton's fate. What makes Clark's story so compelling isn't that he was destined to save mankind, but that he chooses to use his powers to help his fellow man. He could be selfish with them, or just keep his head down and try to fit in, but he chooses the burden of being Superman.

All this being said, this is just the backstory I give the characters. None of it is canonical and I'm sure other writers have given the characters their own backstory. I mean, I find it tremendously helpful to think about the experiences that I imagine shaped the characters when trying to figure out how they would react to particular situations, I'm sure others do as well. I don't just apply this to Clark and Lois, but to characters like Perry and Clark's parents as well. I assume that Martha is a transplant to Kansas (at a very young age) from Boston, that her mother never adjusted to or appreciated small town life and was thus never really impressed with Jonathan and couldn't stand the thought of her daughter dating a simple farmer (leading to the 'stuff a sock in it' remark that caused Martha to love Jonathan in the first place). I also assume that it was rebelling against her mother that gave Martha the same sort of stubborn independent streak that Lois has. I think of Jonathan's ancestors as having been Free Soil Republicans who settled Kansas back in the 1850s. I've also written that he had two older brothers, both of whom had passed away fairly young. These backstories - the family histories, the events in the characters own lives, the places where they've grown up and lived, as well as their religious backgrounds, all go into making them who they are, even when they aren't explicitly stated in stories. I would actually find it very hard to write these characters without thinking about all of this backstory.