Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related not exactly a characterization question

So I was wondering...

Sometimes, fics change Clark Kent's major character traits and yet some readers still feel they are reading a story about Clark Kent/Superman.

So I was wondering... (love repetition ), would readers accept a 'Clark Kent/Superman' who had the personality characteristics we saw in the comics and in L & C:tNAoS but who looked substantially physically different from Clark Kent.

Let's say he had red hair, freckles, was slightly built and say about 5'8. Not bad looking but definitely not 'greek god' material. (and I hasten to add that I love people with red hair and freckles - some of them, I'm related to even )

Would such a major change in physical appearance throw readers out of the story? Would you feel, no matter how decently that the story was written, you just weren't reading a story about Clark Kent/Superman?

c.

Hmmm, atleast for me, if the characteristics (barring the physical appearance) ring close to our / comics' Clark, and he ends up with his Lois Lane , I'll read it.

Wouldn't bother me, Carol. It would just be an Elseworld, far as I was concerned. It's what Clark does and how he thinks that are important to me, that make him who he is, rather than the physical attributes.

LabRat

I'd still read it, but I must confess that since its all words on a paper, I don't know if the red hair, etc. would stick in my head unless I was consistently reminded of it.

You might want to ask the question of Tank, though, since he seems so stuck on red, short hair for Lois.

Elisabeth

Exactly!

I usually ignore the descriptions (even while writing a story!) in favor of the mood of the story and the character's character rather than physical characteristics.

Actually, despite the way you describe your Clark, the only image that comes to my mind whenever I see Clark or Superman in a story, is that of Dean Cain! So it doesn't matter unless you change the whole person, as it happened in case of Woody Samms in the episode I've Got You Under My Skin

Sounds like you are trying to put Clark/Superman into Jimmy's body. Since I don't like Jimmy it would be a problem for me.

I have to admit that basic body changes would be more of a problem for me then personality changes. Granted these would be 'Elseworlds' stories but I see those as placing our characters into environmentally different situations which would have an effect on how their personalities would be formed and the actions they would take based on that different matrix.

Aside from easily changed aspects like hair color/length and wardrobe choices, a change in the basic physical characteristics would constitute a different person to me. Unless you change the parentage,and thus the genetics, you would have different people.

Having said that, I could except a story that uses a device, such as Asabi's 'soul transferance' jewel, to put the esssence of Superman/Clark and/or Lois into a different physical body. If fact it's been done before. I believe Pam wrote a story where Lois was trapped in a different body.

Bottom line, a good story is a good story. I might feel your premise might only have a passing resemblance to a L&C story, but I'd still give it a shot.

Also, to clear up a misconception. I most definitely prefer Lois with short, dark, hair. I've used her changing to a red color for some of her disguises in some fics for a specific reason. Teri dyed her hair and had it cut short (too short in my opinion) for that bad TV movie she did during one hiatus. So I have used the red color in some instances because we already had a mental image that we could access while reading the story.

Tank (who much prefers dark brunette hair color over all other options)

No, I meant only that Clark Kent would be physically quite different. Not that he was temporarily residing elsewhere in someone else's body.

But, Tank, you're right - I never thought of if but the change I described does sound like comic book Jimmy.

c.

I think I have to elaborate what I said :
Quoting myself
which means

1. If the Clark in your story has, say, blonde hair then I'd imagine something like this...



2. If he has red hair in your story then,



Vanda, how do you do it? *sigh* It took me hours to edit this picture and it still looks clumsy! I hope Dean Cain doesn't faint if he ever sees this!


Any physical changes that I can't imagine on the person wouldn't be acceptable to me, I think. But it's probably just me!

So, bottom line is that as long as you don't change the person behind the persona I use for imagination, in this instance, Dean Cain, I'll read it!

Hmmmm. Interesting. I don't necessarily picture Superman as Dean Cain. I do, however, think he must be dark-haired and relatively muscular and tall. If he's blond, red-haired, freckled, short, fat or thin, then I guess I don't really think that he is Superman.

By the way, I think Jimmy should be red-haired and freckled. Lana should be red-haired too, but without freckles. Lois should be dark-haired, Lucy should be light blond, and the same goes for Cat Grant. And why? Well, isn't it obvious? Because they looked like that in the comics.

Ann

Or, because they looked like that in the show!

I guess, we all want to stick to the very first image that we came across. I mean, Brandon Routh's good looking too, but somehow it's always Dean Cain whom I recall when I hear the word Superman.

Why? Isn't it obvious, too? The first *Superman* program that I watched as a kid (actually a teenager) was *Lois and Clark*.

I didn't like Reeve's Superman-the movie. Can you believe it?

Me either!

I loved Superman The Movie when it was first released - which was more or less my first introduction to the Superman myth. (I knew the basics of course, but had never been much interested in the comics or previous incarnations).

Then, I saw LNC. And now I cannot watch STM because I hate the geeky Clark and poor Margot Kidder can't hold a candle to Teri Hatcher as Lois.

LabRat

I believe it! I saw LnC as a kid and S:TM as a teenager. The movie incarnation just couldn't hold a candle. My jaw dropped at Reeve's portayal of Clark. And the whole thing was so campy! I mean, LnC was campy--especially at the end--but the movie was far worse, in my opinion.

Exactly ***! I'd love to fill those asterisks with so many colorful words!

I walked out of the movie! My hubby still laughs at me and gives me that patronizing, I-told-you-so look.

For me Clark's the mild-mannered, cute, loving, understanding, loyal, farmboyish, naive yet knowledgeable, teasing, friendly, handsome guy they portrayed in Lois and Clark!

And Lois is that stubborn, domineering, pigheaded, take-no-prisoners type, brilliant, cynical yet a funny sort, loyal, having a tender heart hidden within all that hard-bitten exterior - waiting to be unleashed by the loving guy described above!

And any other major character change is difficult to get accustomed to and I know most of the FoLCs must feel the same way, because, I wrote one such elseworld story and truth be told, I'd *not* have read it had somebody else written it.

I recently re-read Wendy's 'It Happened One (Super) Night' which has a similar scenario, but somehow I loved it, because Clark *doesn't* know that he has hurt Lois.

So, what I'm saying is we do have to have a variety of stories. We'll be bored if every story has a kiss, a hug, an all's-well-that-begins-well plot.

Besides, I think there were a lot of unsaid things in the show that requires some working on our part (episode rewrites).

But as long as the characters don't deviate much and I can fit them into the basic mold I've created for them in my mind, I guess it's okay!!!
I'll read it and I'll love it!

This is so interesting, our different takes on Lois and Clark/Superman's characters.

I grew up with the comics. In the comics, Lois loved Superman and strongly suspected that Clark Kent was Superman. Kent was a total geek, and Lois despised Clark for demeaning himself by putting on such a silly act. But she completely loved Superman!

Superman's love for Lois was iffy at best. He had two other girlfriends who he might prefer over Lois. They were the stunning Wonder Woman and Lori Lemaris, the mermaid. And Lana Lang was lurking in the background.

Comic book Clark was pining for Lois, but he was such a parody of a man that you couldn't take him, or his supposed love, seriously. Particularly when you knew that he was deliberately making himself ridiculous!

So I took Lois's side in the love triangle between her and Clark and Superman. She was the one who was honest, and she wasn't stupid, either! And she was the one who truly loved.

In the movies it got even worse. Clark accidentally revealed his secret identity to Lois, then he shed his powers and made love to her. Then he regretted what he had done, got his powers back and gave Lois an amnesia kiss so that she wouldn't know what had hit her (in a very intimate place ). Then in the next movie, Lois was just a background character, because Superman had dumped her, so of course we didn't need to know anything about her! Instead, Superman was romancing Lana Lang until he was hit by red K, after which he became a sex-crazed maniac who had sex with all kinds of women!

And finally, in Superman Returns, we learn that Superman had sex with Lois and then walked out on her, leaving her to raise their son alone, or at least without his help.

Because of all of this, I have such a hard time believing that it is Lois who is the problem and who prevents Lois and Clark from getting together in LnC. It's so hard for me to accept that she is galactically stupid, or that she is more promiscuous than Superman, or that she is completely messed up and needs Clark to save her, or that she needs to figure out that she loves plain old Clark Kent more than Superman. Heck, she needs Clark to show that he trusts her so that she can love and trust the whole man, Clark and Superman!

Phew!!! I needed to get that off my chest!

Ann

Quote

I have such a hard time believing that it is Lois who is the problem and who prevents Lois and Clark from getting together in LnC.

Oh! At last I know what's behind your FDK on Don't Go Away!!! Trust me, it really gave me a sleepless night.

I think looking at it from your POV, it all seems crystal clear! Clark's the skirt chaser and Lois is the embodiment of fidelity.

Whereas, here Lois is the experienced one (even though it's only what? once? twice?) and Clark's the one saving himself for her.

But the thing about Lois in LNC is :

1. She *is* honest (except for little white lies that make her so adorable)

2. She is *not* stupid (you should see her giant leaps of logic)

3. And the blind spot she has when it comes to Clark/Superman is just that - a blind spot! Maybe because she desperately wishes for Superman to be that one flawless man she'd placed on a pedestal in her heart. ( She *does* almost find out when she's under the effect of the pheromone!)

4. And Lois is not a *pants-chaser* (as opposed to skirt-chaser, how else do I call it? ) - in fact, she's so wary of men that she trusts only Perry and probably Jimmy, at first.

And though they did mess up (at least that's what I think) during the final few episodes, the whole show was sort of romantic! I mean there are only a few guys who really and truly fall head-over-heels in love with a woman.

And Lois in LnC was good, quite good.

But all this makes me suspect something, Ann. Have you watched LnC completely? I mean at least the major episodes?

Well, part of the issue of Superman/Lois/Clark triangle comes straight from the comics and the Superman movies (including Superman Returns) are based on the ideas given in the pre-Byrne reset comics.

Lois Lane is in love with the proud Kryptonian Kal-El who can barely give her the time of day. To have a link with humanity, the Kryptonian masquerades as a human - his version on a human, flawed and weak. (Kill Bill didn't have it all wrong.) And of course Lois can't give the alter-ego the time of day. It's a triangle that's meant to be eternal written for an audience for whom anything more romantic than a peck on the cheek is sacrilege.

Then in 1986, the entire psychology of Superman is turned upside down. Clark Kent is a baby found in a spaceship and raised on a farm in Kansas. He grows up a healthy, normal child until he reaches his teens when all hell breaks loose - Clark Kent discovers he has powers far beyond those of mortal men. As an adult, he discovers he is from a planet he knows almost nothing about.

It's Clark Kent who has to invent Superman, a character who Lois Lane falls in lust with. But Superman isn't invented because Jor-El ordered it, Superman is invented because without that persona, Clark Kent's life and those he cares about wouldn't be worth a plug nickel.

Sound familiar?

Clark Kent, Kansas farm boy turned reporter, would never do anything to hurt Lois Lane - she's one of the few people capable of keeping him on his toes, capable of really being competition. He's a good man. A good HUman.

Kal-El (the pre-1986 Kryptonian) may be fond of Lois, but she certainly isn't his equal in his eyes. The term 'Superman's Girl Friend' is only in her mind. And that Clark Kent spent a lot of time congratulating himself on how clever he was in fooling the hairless chimps.

Donner and the Salkinds made Superman the Movie a romance to make it more palatable to film audiences. But the Superman they were stuck with was Kal-El the proud Kryptonian, who, if taken to the logical extreme, was perfectly capable of noblesse oblige. He was a jerk.

Singer inherited him and tried to force him a little closer to later versions. But action-adventure cinema doesn't allow for that type of evolution to take place easily. It's not something that can be shown through special effects - Kal-El finally recognizing that Superman is a fiction and Clark Kent is the real person.

This is exactly why I don't like the Superman movies, hate pre-Crisis, and love anything post-Crisis. In Pre-Crisis continuity, he still came to earth as a baby, is raised as human, but completely abandons his upbringing because OMG he's not from Earth! Suddenly he's all Kal-El from Krypton instead of Clark Kent from Kansas. It's a completely unrealistic take. And the "costumed persona", Clark Kent, is just horrible to watch. I was horribly disappointed when I found out that Superman Returns was following that continuity, and wouldn't have seen it if it weren't for my husband.

Post-Crisis, including L&C, just makes sense to me. Clark Kent is raised as a human, lives as a human, and has all of those human foibles that make us who we are. When he finds out about his powers and heritage, he doesn't abandon who he has been for the past 16-25 years, but tries to add that part of him to his whole person... but can't exactly do that without becoming hunted, so he dons a costume. It's like any other superhero in the comics.. The Flash, Spider-Man, Green Lantern. When these people gain their powers, they don't go about changing who they are, they just try to fit this new part in as best they can.

I'd hesitate to call Lois a problem, but it's true that she is the reason they aren't together much more quickly. Clark is a good guy in LNC. Not perfect by any means, but his love for Lois is the driving factor in almost every decision he makes. Even the stupid ones.

In LNC, Lois isn't galactically stupid, but she is a bit blind (like coolgirl said). She isn't promiscuous, she just has (limited) experience that Clark doesn't. She's certainly not completely messed up, and the only thing she needs Clark to save her from is death - repeatedly. But the rest of what you said is pretty close to true.

The thing is, though, when you're coming from the premise that Clark is a good man (as opposed to a proud, very-alien, love-em-and-leave-em jerk), it's easy to understand that Clark could, over time, teach Lois about love and trust.

Lisa

P.S. In a nod to the original question, I will say that unless I'm constantly reminded of the fact that CK has red hair and freckles, I'm going to picture Dean Cain in the role regardless of what the character is supposed to look like.

Probably that wouldn't be how it goes - the few stories I've written tend to be pretty descriptive (maybe too much so). Hard for me to leave out those descriptive details.

I'm flexible on the red hair and freckles - I just used that as an example. Still, CK would be slightly built, about 5'8", very fine features - I see him with a hawk-like nose and a bit of a weak chin, blond hair. Maybe grey eyes. Remember his character would still be the same as L & C CK/S though. So how does that sound?

He wouldn't be dying his hair pink, though. Although I was taken by coolgirl's changed hair-colour pics.

c

oh, and "me too" about the criticism of the S movies.

While I wouldn't say that it was entirely Lois's fault, it is true to say that it was more her fault than Clark's, I think. Lois had been bitten badly in love previously - twice at least that we know of - and badly betrayed by the men she'd trusted, both professionally and romantically. It wasn't entirely surprising, therefore, that she would be gun shy and take some time to break down the walls she'd built around herself for protection and learn to trust again.

Part of what I love about the show is that Clark saw straight through that tough shell to the Lois who snuffled at soap operas in bed right away, saw that she was so much more than the tough, hardbitten image she projected, and had the patience to stick with her till she realised he wasn't going to be the next jerk in line.

LabRat

This is exactly why I like the LnC version. *Neither* is perfect and both have very human flaws, even the great Kal-El. Clark doesn't place himself above the rest of humanity and the costumed superhero is nothing more than a disguise for the farmboy from Kansas. He's human in all but fact. He makes mistakes, he loses his temper, he sulks, he plays practical jokes, as we see in Neverending Battle. Lois, on the other hand, isn't any more perfect. She's not a virgin when Clark meets her and we're led to believe that her past relationships with men were fairly disastrous. She's a hard-driving reporter who will go to just about any lengths for a story, and frequently does something on the spur of the moment that she regrets later when she has time to think about it -- but she's certainly not stupid. And once she takes the time to get to know Clark she realizes that he isn't a jerk like the guys in her past -- but it takes a while.

Lois and Clark, for all its campiness, is the incarnation of the Superman mythos that I really fell hard for, which is why I'm still here.

Nan

But one's body and looks does effect personality. A slightly built man with fine features will have different experiences than a man four to five inches taller.

These differences will color his outlook. He won't have as imposing a demeanor as Superman. It will be harder for him to impress people and harder for him to prove himself.

A shorter Clark will likely be more intense as he needs that edge to get through to people. He has to push harder simply due to being shorter.

I would liken it to dog sizes - German Shepherds and collies are medium-large. They are smart and (depending on the personality) don't need to bark much unless trained to - they have enough size to do what they need to do. A Saint Bernard - ditto. All the Saint Bernards I've known were gentle giants.

Terriers on the other hand - their size works against them and they compensate with loudness and snarkiness.

I can see Lois as a terrier. Dean Cain's Clark is definitely a German Shepherd and Brandon Routh's Clark is a Saint Bernhard or Afghan Hound. (Put away the breakables, Clark is here.)

:p

Hmmmm. This thread made me think of how I thought Michael Landis was all wrong as Jimmy Olsen, because he looked wrong. Jimmy Olsen, tall and dark-haired? Come on....

Anyway, I googled for pictures of Jimmy, but I came upon this picture instead. An image of young Clark. Well... he is less musclebound than usual, and he looks generally slimmer and more fine-boned, doesn't he?



Ann

I wrote a story, Gender Bender, in which Lois and Clark were born as people of the opposite sex.

It can be found here. Don't worry...it's short.

http://www.lcficmbs.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=005925#000000

It was written probably as well as most of my other stories, but there were fewer responses than most of my other stories. A few people privately admitted to me that the idea made them a little uncomfortable.

Apparently, Clark with red hair is ok, but Clark with breasts isn't.

Shayne, I somehow missed "Gender Bender" when it was posted, so clicked on the link and read it. I thought it was a very interesting re-imagining of the pilot with gender reversal. I can't see that going the same direction as the series, but it might be an interesting universe to explore. And while it didn't make me uncomfortable, I could tell that these two people had some similarities to Lois and Clark but also had some striking differences. I liked it.

Carol, you wrote:

I know that Dandello has already responded directly to this, and for the most part I agree with her evaluation. It's not that being about average height and less attractive (at least, that's what I get from the description, but what do I know about how good-looking another guy is?) would change his character, but it would definitely change the way he grew up, and it would change the way people respond to him, for better or for worse. Clark would either accept being part of the crowd and blend in, or he'd behave in a more aggressive manner in order to compensate. And since the Clark you're describing seems to be less physically attractive than Dean Cain, I'd guess that the "god in tights" description would not be applied to him.

Remember also that part of Superman's "presence" is derived from his appearance. Resplendent Man was just as fast, just as strong, just as super-powered as Superman, but even had he not sent people bills for services rendered, he wouldn't have enjoyed the public acclaim Superman did simply because he didn't look the part. A Superman who doesn't "look the part" is going to have to do something different to compensate.

(I thought Resplendent Man looked dumpy in his uniform, anyway. Chubby guys should not wear spandex.)

And we haven't even mentioned how Lois might respond to him. Would she be as impressed as "our" Lois was? Would she blow him off personally and treat him only as an interesting source of news stories? Or would it be somewhere in between? And wouldn't that provide some relationship fodder!

That's not to say that you couldn't or shouldn't post a story like this. I know I'd read it, and I think it would be an interesting universe to write about. After all, we're in this to have fun with it, aren't we?

Resplendant Man's personality traits were substantially different from those of CK/S - I'm not sure that they can be accounted for entirely by his physical appearance. Besides RM was quite a lot shorter than average. Interesting thoughts about how height and body size influence personality and people's perceptions, though.

Actually, I was sort of envisioning a young Paul Newman but with grey eyes

c.

I agree. I've always associated a good strong voice with tall, muscled men and soft squeaky voice with short, fat-bellied men.

Dunno if it's true but I can picture it only like that!!!

But even if we start a comic-book or a series named Resplendent Man, with all the good qualities of Clark Kent (Lois and Clark: New adventures of Superman version, not the comic-book skirt-chaser version), I don't think it'll affect us as much as Superman did.

I mean, look at the numerous nfics we've written. Would anybody want to try writing one for RM? (Tank, not you! Please!)

Or even if an nfic did concentrate on RM, would you read it?

I don't think I will...

Any changes in eye color or hair color I may consider, but changing the personality? the build? that chest? those muscles? ... definitely not!

noooo - banish those Rm thoughts.

Think instead - young Paul Newman - check out some classic films and see.

c.

Well, Carol, I've sounded negative to the idea of a major change of Clark/Superman's appearance. But at the same time, I think such a fic would be interesting.

I really think we are too fixated on people's looks these days. Personally, I often prefer British films over American films, simply because the actors often look more "normal", more "average", less "perfect" and less glamorous in British films than in American films. And when the actors look more normal, the characters they play often strike me as more believable and real, too.

This reminds me of what a small boy said to his mom, after he had seen a number of movies and then accompanied his mother to a big shopping mall. He looked around, contemplated the people around him, compared them with the people he used to see on TV, and then said to his mom:

"Mommy, how come most people are uglier than most people?"

I think it would be interesting to meet a Clark Kent who is an average-looking guy, a "run-of-the-mill" person when it comes to his looks. Most of us are. Why shouldn't Clark be like that?

I recently watched a first-season episode of LnC, where we actually saw Jor-El and Lara put their baby boy in his spaceship and launch him toward the Earth. Jor-El and Lara both looked rather blond and pale, and I thought that two people who looked like them couldn't possibly have a biological son with Dean Cain's dark hair, brown eyes and olive complexion.

So please do write your story, Carol. It should be interesting to see Clark having to deal with the dual problem of being an average-looking, not obviously impressive guy, while at the same time having to keep his awesome superpowers a secret to everyone who laughs at him. Come to think of it, this premise sounds a lot like Jerry Siegel's and Joe Shuster's original take on Clark Kent. But I guess your Superman won't look as impressive in tights as Siegel and Shuster's Superman did.

Ann

We tend to forget that the pseudo-science of eugenics was not confined to Nazi Germany in the 1930's. Supposedly reputable scientists all over the world bought into it in varying degrees. In fact, the insults "moron," "idiot," and "retard" originated as medical terms, used to describe the intelligence level of certain classes of people. They were often applied to new immigrants coming to the US who spoke little or no English and could not possibly have understood what they were being asked or told. So Superman was envisioned as being the physical ideal of so many societies of the day, but also as one possessing the moral compass so many societies of the day lacked.

Ann could certainly converse fluently in Swedish, but I know that I could not. If I were given an intelligence test in Swedish or Russian or Swahili, I'd fail miserably despite whatever level of intelligence I might possess. Let's not forget that this was the world in which Jerry Siegel and Jerry Schuster were trying to survive, one in which immigrants from all over the world were marginalized and treated as less than worthy of consideration.

American society has progressed somewhat since then, but the basic problem of judging people by their "differentness" hasn't disappeared. Even though we don't do it on the cultural level we once did, it still happens. And a shorter, less physically striking Superman would be received differently by the general public.

(Of course, if he were a young, gray-eyed Paul Newman, Lois might still trip on her tongue while lusting after him.)

Siegel and Schuster saw the problems immigrants were going through. They understood the prejudice that was applied to so many sub-cultures, especially Jewish ones, and they brought out a hero who was an immigrant, who fought for justice and truth (and not for the current political power structure), and who could not be hurt by anything thrown at him by those ignorant savages he was trying to help.

Krypton was initially described by Siegel and Schuster as a planet where people had evolved into tall, strong, intelligent, handsome, peaceful people. Their super-human physical abilities (the vision thingy and the flying came much later) were common, and they were only brought down by their own hubris.

Kal-El was the sole survivor of that magnificent civilization, a man with the genetic blueprint of those marvelous people. Because Clark/Superman was raised by a salt-of-the-earth couple in rural Mid-America, people without economic opportunities (remember, this was also during the worldwide Great Depression) could identify with the country-boy-makes-good image he projected.

Superman's creators were Jewish by heritage, but instead of making a Jewish superhero, they created someone who embodied the immigrant experience and transcended it. Superman is, after all, the ultimate outsider looking in, always surrounded by humanity but forever alien from it. He can either pretend to be something he thinks he ultimately isn't in order to "blend in," or he can stand aloof from them and use his abilities openly, but unless he disguises himself he can't do both. Originally, Superman disguised himself as Clark Kent, but I prefer to describe Clark disguising himself as Superman. This is a very Jewish mindset, one which those folks have struggled with for as long as they haven't had a land to call home. Perhaps the American Indian experience approaches this level of cultural conflict, but it hasn't gone on for nearly as long.

L&C's take on Clark trying so very hard to be human was (and continues to be) emblematic of our own struggle to fit into a constantly shifting world today. Siegel and Schuster were struggling artists just trying to make a living when they penned the first Superman tale, but they've bequeathed to us a fascinating portrait of a man whose very strength can be his greatest weakness, a man who - despite his striking differences - is essentially no different from the rest of us.

Carol, I think you should write this story. I think this is something that should be shared. I believe it will engender some intelligent discussion within our community.

Thank you, Jerry and Jerry. And thank all of you FOLCs who continue to keep the dream alive.

Uh... yeah, I think I can live with Clark looking like a young Paul Newman .

Young Paul Newman. That's not exactly your average-looking kind of guy.



He seemed to smoke a lot (young Paul Newman, I mean). Hopefully your Clark won't. Smoking won't harm him, but his secondary smoke will harm other people.

Anyway, young Paul Newman could sure be romantic:



He actually looked somewhat Superman-like himself:



A guy who looks like young Paul Newman can't be described as appearance-challenged.

Ann

lovely

C A & Ann, thank-you!

c.

Hmm. I guess looks is the thing I'm least hung up on when it comes to LnC. I don't linger on descriptions of characters when I read at all really, so unless looks meant something plot-wise (like wearing disguises or something or I remember like some fic in which Lois' weight was thematized), I wouldn't be paying attention to it.

The fact that Dean Cain is attractive doesn't really mean that much to me. It only comes to mean something when you pit him alongside RM in nfic or something *shudder*.

I liked Shayne's Gender Bender, I had no problem visualizing the characters in my head. It was great to see how the changes affected the protagonists.


alcyone

Yes, me neither - it's not 'looks' that make the man. although I agree with those who've suggested that appearance does affect to some degree how some people perceive the characters or abilities of others. It shouldn't be that way, but it sometimes is.

c.

Oh definitely. I wonder how this would translate in fanfic though. First, I think an author would have to constantly remind the readers of the change in appearance, be it through other's comments in the story or introspective moments. Following that necessity, I don't know how I would take it to have Clark (or others) be so caught up in how he looks within the story (presumming he's just "ordinary")--this focus on the looks of a "normal" guy seems unrealistic. If he's that ordinary, I'd argue, he'd just fade into the background (kind of like we're meant to think he does in the series, which is where the problem lies--the series wants us to think attractive is normal).

If he were unattractive by mass standards (a la RM) I agree this would begin to cross the characterization line--I always thought confidence, for example, was part of Clark's easy-going, mellow character. A Clark that knows he's extraordinary, but gets treated like dirt for being chubby or something, might have a different view of people (a lot of contempt for one).

I think that there is no middle ground in these situations because what authors write is based on an image that most people already accept as "normal" for the fandom (which is not in RL, of course). Either we go with the "normal" that the show gave us or thematize appearance in a way where (by default) Clark's attractiveness is "less-than-normal" (since it merits being commented on repeatedly--a necessity, I would argue, since without the reminders, Clark would still look like Cain for most of us).

Phew. That was convoluted. For me though, the fundamental question would be, if Clark had red hair and freckles what purpose does that serve the fic? As a reader, as long as I get a hint of the answer, I'm okay with whatever.

alcyone

My guess is because every author wants to write a story which hasn't been done before.

E