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.