Lois & Clark Forums Forums Fan Fiction Fanfic Related What's so great about *Clark*, anyway?

Something's been weighing on my mind a lot, especially as I enter young adulthood.

Why does Lois have to choose Clark over Superman?

Almost every story cements the notion that Lois must choose Clark in order to be rewarded with the Clark/Superman combo. Okay, so Clark is the arguably real persona (And even stories that note the false choice still tend to have Lois choose Clark, but maybe lecture him later on.) but Lois doesn't know that.

If Clark and Superman *were* two different people, would Lois still be "shallow" for wanting Superman over Clark?

Fannish drooling aside, she knows he's a decent guy. The fact that he has a likable personality while in tights is what makes him approachable; just compare him to Batman. (The spooky Batman, not the 60s guy). The only real difference (in *this* continuity) is that Superman has powers, Clark doesn't. Superman saves lives everyday, Clark writes about it. In the older comics, the differences get worse.

I feel like I'm being sent a message that, "In order to get what you want in life, you must significantly lower your standards and not go after what seems like the best/most attractive option."

Now, I don't blame any FoLCs personally for this. It's a myth that was handed to us, and we take turns passing it around. I'm just starting to wonder, that's all.

Well, you know I hate all of this "false choice" business! Lois shouldn't have to choose between two guys who are one and the same, because if she ever marries one of them she will have to live with both of them! I think it is so irritating to suggest that she will have to learn to love the mild-mannered farmboy, because he is the one who will be able to live just for her, whereas Superman will have to live for the world. Well, that's a load of b-s, because the moment the world needs Superman the mild-mannered farmboy is going to run out on Lois so he can be the S-man and give himself to the world instead. And keeping that fact about Clark a secret to Lois, while at the same time trying to persuade her that good old Clark is the man for her, is just plain mean. With Superman, Lois would at least know where she stood. And if she knew that Clark and Superman were the same guy, she could make an informed choice about whether or not she wanted to marry this person at all. Wooing her and flirting with her and making her emotionally dependent on Clark and then informing her who he really is is a bit like luring a person into a sect. First you woo them and welcome them and make them feel great, and then, when they have swallowed your concept hook, line and sinker, you let them know what the life they have chosen really means.

Ann

I think part of it is that it's what Clark wants: he wants her to choose Clark over Superman, so we, as fans, like to see him get what he wants. However, I do agree with Ann that it's unfair of Clark to expect Lois to see Clark as an ordinary guy and love him as an ordinary guy when he's anything but ordinary. He may see himself that way, but the truth is that Superman, even though he's not real, presents challenges to Clark's relationship with Lois that she has a right to know about. It's kind of like dating someone and entering into a relationship with them without telling them that you're a police officer (or doctor, soldier etc.) who lives an unpredictable and/or dangerous life. But I do see how it would be a turn-off if you thought that the only reason someone would love you is because you're a police officer.

And I think that's exactly what makes the situation in LnCTNAoS so complicated. One does kind of get the impression that Lois' Superman fixation is a bit shallow and focused on his abilities. You say that picking Clark instead of Superman constitutes a lowering of Lois' standards, implying that Superman is somehow better than Clark. But what is it that makes him better? As you pointed out, there really isn't that much of a difference between CK and Supes, personality-wise. They're both fun, caring, good, honest men. Even Lois realizes this and points it out in Metallo. So it's easy to get the impression that the only reason she prefers Superman over Clark is that he has extraordinary powers. (Now, in the old comic books and the movies, I don't blame her at all for wanting Superman and not Clark. For one thing, in that incarnation, Kal-El is the real persona, and for another, Clark is such a dork that he's hard to take seriously. I don't even understand why he feels the need to be Clark at all.)

So to sum up, Clark views Superman as a job title (like police officer) and thinks it's unfair that Lois would love him simply because he wears a nice uniform and flies around saving people. So he doesn't tell her about it. Which is unfair to her because him having this "job" is a huge part of his life that will inevitably have an impact on their relationship. It's a really f'd up situation for both of them.

sounds an awful lot like
Tall poppy syndrome
which I just found out is a term not only confined to us ANZACs, but that Canadians apparently use it too...

from wikipedia
Conservative commentators, particularly city-based ones, often criticise Australians for their alleged desire to punish the successful........

HOWEVER it is more common that:
...

the term TALL POPPIES, is a general one that is now mainly used to describe more the media coverage of our "idols" being sporting "heroes" as opposed to our Nobel Prize winners... but in general (from my own experiences) it is not a ridiculing of the best and brightest, nor is it a "celebration of mediocrity" (to quote the recent Pixar Movie- the INCREDIBLES) ... but a focus on other forms of excellence

as such this is why we tend to hold great "public admiration" for sportsmen, and the like (I suppose this is the opposite to Superman vs. CK), because the physical triumphs are made with evidence of years and years of hard training, whereas studying quietly at one's desk is less visible and hence the person was "born smart" and hence not such an achievement...


NOTE:
Including our newly elected PM, Kevin Rudd, our last 3 PM's (Rudd, Howard and Keating) came from "humble beginnings" (i.e. Lower Socio-economic status levels... as seen by their childhood/teen years linked with the geographical locations of their schools being in poorer districts....)

how many presidents can claim this:?
-that was not a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know the answer, but presume due to your system that it is a low number... and know that your last 3 Presidents did not share this history

(I'm answering this based on the question of what if they were two different people. I'm leaving aside for now the fact that Clark handled the situation very badly.)

Lois wouldn't be shallow to choose Superman. He's a good guy. But the reason Lois eventually chooses Clark is because she realizes that he is the best and most attractive option.

Superman is kind and good. He's handsome. He saves the world. Hell, he saves Lois on a fairly regular basis. He can do some really nifty things. And that's about where it ends, because Lois doesn't know anything else about him, and he's never given her the opportunity. The man's never spent more than five minutes in her company unless he is saving her life.

Clark is also kind and good. He's handsome even considering his unfortunate choice in ties and glasses. He doesn't save the world, but he does make a difference. He doesn't save her life very often, but Lois probably would excuse this because, hey, he's not Superman! So as far as the one on one comparisons go, Clark obviously doesn't measure up, but he comes a lot closer then most men.

But Lois also has to consider what Clark has that Superman doesn't. He spends time with her and obviously appreciates her company. They've worked together, so she knows firsthand that he's is honest and reliable. They've had two years of good times together doing things like dancing, watching Mel Gibson movies, eating pizza, and playing Scrabble. He's got a great family. When she needs comfort, he's right there. And most important: he wants to be with her.

Lois didn't settle for Clark. She just finally figured out what she really wanted.

Lisa

I don't really see it as a lowering of standards, since both Clark and Superman have the same characteristics and are inherently good. But loving Superman is like loving an actor. You see him here and there, but despite what the tabloids say, you really don't know anything about him. Lois's love of Superman is just hero worship, since, if they *were* different people, she wouldn't know what he does in his time off, what kind of foods he likes, his world views, etc and so on. She loves the ideal, but has absolutely no idea about the substance. Clark, on the other hand, I'm sure she could name off a lot of little things about him and his likes and dislikes if she took the time and thought about it.

Clark was trying more than to make her choose between Superman and himself. He was trying to get her to see stop seeing the top layer, the public persona, and see the real person underneath.

re: Tall Poppies...

Fascinating. I had never heard of that before. At first I was quite confused, actually, but the Wikipedia article cleared it up, I think. Let me double-check...

"Tall Poppies" would be the people who are more successful, richer, flashy? than the rest of the crowd, and therefore stand out. Right? So then "Tall Poppy Syndrome" would be the desire by the *less* successful, rich, whatever, to bring down the outstanding one? Or maybe it's the concept that extraordinary people deserve contempt and/or punishment, for the sin of being (well, appearing) somehow "better" than others?

Sounds to me like human nature, especially envy and anger. Wounded pride, maybe. "Such and so thinks they're better than I am. I'll show *them*" How many writers here will claim to have *never* had a moment of anger or resentment that another author was getting more attention?

So then the question would seem to be -- what do people choose to do with those feelings? And what kind of action does the culture encourage?

In America, we've got this national myth of a poor humble person working hard, pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps, and eventually achieving success. That's viewed as a *good* thing, with the accompanying subtext that anyone can do it. That's the "American dream." Start with nothing, work hard, end up very well-to-do (or at least own a house in the suburbs with two vehicles, one of which is an SUV). It's a cherished part of our national self-image: Anyone can get ahead in life, if they work at it. And it's focused on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

In real life, it gets a little messier than that. There are those who consider themselves better than the masses, and the masses (assuming they notice) usually resent that.

It's the attitude that says "okay, so you've got millions more dollars than me, but don't you dare start to think you're better than me, 'cause you ain't."


More than you'd think. Coming from wealth and priviledge is more of a disadvantage here when courting votes.

One of our greatest presidents was Abe Lincoln, who famously grew up very poor, doing hard manual labor.

More recently... Our presidential candidates have generally tried to present their backgrounds as humbly as possible. Bill Clinton gave sob stories about his alcholic dead-beat dad. And if they don't have humble backgrounds, they might try to fake them -- Al Gore tried to pretend he was a farmer instead of the son of a rich Senator. George H.W. Bush lost his bid for re-election in part because he seemed elitist and out of touch. His son George W. Bush was viewed with suspicion, but at least he didn't live in Connecticut; he owned a ranch, and he worked at it. So maybe he's okay. John Kerry, otoh, was an arrogant upper-class type, who married money not once but twice. This was not seen as a plus.

Mind you, it's a big country and there are lots of variations in people's perceptions. I'm just relating my version.

I guess that might be a dimension of the "tall poppy syndrome" -- don't inflate yourself or you'll be cut down. "Growing up rich" = "not pulling your own weight." But geniune achievement, as opposed to being born into it, is generally admired. We admire achievers, we disdain aristocracy.

I dunno, I'm rambling, but it's been really interesting to contemplate.

PJ

A few random thoughts, which may well overlap with what others have said...

Clark is the one who wants Lois to choose Clark over Superman. Because, from his perspective, Clark is the real person and Superman is the disguise. That's how it was presented to us, and we're in on the secret. So it's easy enough to fall into that line of thinking.

But the false nature of the choice has been pointed out in more than a few fics. As has Lois's side of things, where she honestly does see two different people, forcing Clark to realize that he hasn't exactly been fair.

On the other hand, as others have pointed out... Superman is a cardboard cutout with a bunch of ideals stuck to him. A symble more than a real person. He saves lives and then flies off. He does charity work and then flies off. No one really knows anything about him except that he's the Good Guy and he has super powers. What foods does he like? Does he even eat? Who is he? What's he really like? Not even Lois knows.

She's after him because he's flashy. He's got the uniform and the powers and the celebrity status. He's larger than life. And she's free to imagine the parts she doesn't know however she wants to. He's made up of ideals, so he seems to be the ideal guy. And so she's convinced herself that she'd love him even if he were an ordinary man. And yet, she barely seems to have noticed that very man.

You can go and give reasons for that. How Superman is "safe" to love. How he wouldn't hurt her. How, deep down, maybe she realizes she can't actually be with him. You can say that Clark has been too quiet. Presenting nothing but acceptance and friendship, otherwise lurking over at his desk in the corner. Or you could throw in the "soul mates" thing, if you're so inclined.

In the end, though... Lois is star-struck. Whatever the reasons may be, there's no actual substance to her Superman fixation. There can't be. Because she hasn't had the opportunity to look beyond the blindingly bright ideals on the surface.

If she got into a situation where she actually got to know Kal-El, visitor from the stars, that'd be something else. (And I think that's been explored in a few fics, too.) As we saw it on the show, though... she spends every day with Clark, and had little more than a few isolated "special moments" with Superman. They're the same guy. So if she's throwing herself at Superman but ignoring Clark... what does that say about her?

I agree with much of what has already been said, so I'll just "second" the thought that Superman is only possible because of Clark and how he chooses to use his gifts. Clark is the real and amazing person while Superman is simply the flashy, larger than life image Clark presents to the world when called upon. Of course, I'd love to fly with the man of my dreams who I love and who loves me, but that's just it, Superman could never truly love anyone ina relationship way-he's not real.

Mona

I haven't had the chance to read over the thread so far, so if I'm repeating something previously said, ignore me. <g>

But I always thought that - perhaps subconsciously if nothing else - that this was partly the point for Lois. She'd been bitten badly when it came to love in the past. Superman represented the safe fantasy. A guy she could moon after and tell herself she could be with and wanted to be with, but at the same time she understood (even if she never consciously admitted it to herself) could never really have a relationship with.

Therefore, he would never betray her - as Paul or Claude had done - never let her down, never break her heart.

It may well be that that's the same reason why she ignored Clark. Especially if she'd begun to realise that her feelings for him were changing and that she was growing more and more to depend on him and care about him.

LabRat

As Mona says, the superpowers are just superficial attraction. It's from the man beneath that suit all these qualities emanate.

Without the superpowers Clark would still have been attractive, but without Clark Kent beneath the suit, Superman probably wouldn't have been!

And by attraction, I don't just mean their physical reactions or beauty, though that would have been essential to spark off their relationship, at least initially. Here I mean something deeper - such as attraction towards the inherent good qualities, rather than the superficial skin-deep ones.

In short, attracted to who he is than what he can do!

(just to be safe - copied and pasted from Hutchinson's dictionary)
Definition of attract:
1. to draw to or cause to approach (in a material or immaterial sense).
2. to cause to approach by some influence.
3. to entice, to allure.
4. to draw the notice of.

for Coolgirl's reply. In away Clark is a little like a childhood "hero" of mine He-Man. Yes, I admit to loving that show, despite its flaws. In that case He-Man was only possible when Prince Adam used his magic sword to become the warrior. So unlike Clark, he was not necessarily one person all the time, though I would argue that Adam, the person, had the ethics and kindness of any hero and like Clark it was he that made his alter ego possible.

Just to be extra safe, while I might still hold fond rembrances of "Adam," and enjoy watching tapes of the toon now and then, it was Clark who captured my heart in a much more "real" way. After all, all of us folcs know Clark just has to be real!

Mona

Two of our last four presidents came from very humble beginnings: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And neither became really wealthy until leaving office where giving speeches made both millions per speech. Jimmy Carter had an upper middle class background but never became really rich. You are correct, though, that most of our most recent presidents have come from wealthy, privileged backgrounds, the wealthiest being Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy.

Superman isn't like any old rock star. Superman is like a god. If a woman becomes obsessed with a rock star after he gave her a kiss or an autograph at a concert, or if she becomes obsessed with a god after he came down from the sky and shared a few isolated special moments with her, we call her star-struck.



But if a man becomes obsessed with a god after the god came down from the sky and shared a few isolated special moments with the the man, we usually call the man a prophet.




Ann

I hardly think those are the same thing, Ann.

Star struck is when you obsess and moon over the object of your affection, even though that person barely notices you or doesn't even know you at all. Men can be star struck too. Or, if you want a word that's more generally male-associated, you can try "stalker."

A prophet, OTOH, is someone with a connection from the divine. Noticed, chosen, and given special power... whether it's wanted or not. A female prophet is known as a "prophetess." Or, in the case of Joan of Arc, a "saint."

None of which has anything to do with the actual topic at hand.

Paul

But is it true that Superman barely noticed Lois? Lois once said about Superman that she had a special claim on him because 'she saw him first', which is actually sort of true. He made his very first appearance when he saved her and the Prometheus, and then he dramatically flew her into the Daily Planet newsroom. And after the pheromone incident, he kissed her in public. Is it so hard to understand or accept that Lois would cling to the hope that Superman loved her?

(And it is most certainly not true that Superman didn't know Lois - he just chose to pretend that he didn't. And later he actually told her that he always read her articles.)

Anyway, if Lois ignores Clark and throws herself at Superman, who should be most responsible for trying to rectify the situation? Is it Lois, the deceived one, or is it Clark/Superman, who has ultimately created the situation in the first place by presenting himself to Lois as two people?

The Bible tells us that Paul the Apostle had his first encounter with Jesus when Paul was on his way to Damascus. Jesus appeared to Paul as a blinding light from the sky and as a booming voice from the heavens. Paul was unbelievably impressed, and the experience proved to be not only life-altering for Paul but also world-altering for the rest of us, since Paul's ensuing diligent missionary labors created the foundations for Christianity as the most important religion in the world.

Interestingly, however, when you read the Bible, you find that Paul only ever quotes one of the innumerable things that Jesus said before he was crucified, and that is something Jesus said during the Last Supper. Otherwise, Paul seemed quite uninterested in the man that Jesus had been before he rose from the dead and ascended to Heaven. To put it a bit flippantly, Paul was unbelievably impressed with the 'Superman side' of Jesus Christ, the triumphant heavenly king, but he was uninterested in the 'Clark Kent' side of Jesus, the humble human carpenter and itinerant teacher in Palestine. Presumably the celestial king and the human carpenter were the same man, but Paul lived for one of them but could hardly give the other one the time of day. And yet no one has ever accused Paul of being star struck or superficial.

Unfortunately, Lois was rather star struck when she believed all the lies that Lex fed her. But if she was impressed with Superman, how can we blame her?

Ann

You all have interesting points. I tend to think that Superman has interacted with Lois enough to be at least a friend, and as for being 'just powers'...Well, it's been said that Clark is the man behind Superman, but that just reinforces my argument. Superman is basically Clark-Plus. Why shouldn't Lois want that?

As for the prophet stuff---I wouldn't want to touch that with a ten-foot pole. People have been squabbling for *years* over the true nature of God, Christ, prophets, etc. and it doesn't look like we're any closer to a definite, agreed-upon answer for any of it. Besides, I never cared for comparing Supes to God anyway. (Except Vishnu, for some reason, but I'm wierd).

I guess the question is, did Lois and Supes interact enough to justify Lois' feelings? If not, does that also kill the "love at first sight" theory?

Maybe, in a way...
...but Clark's definitely not *Superman-minus* !!! Clark's a whole human being (can't think of him as an alien, sorry! ) by himself.

Well, God's different! But I'm wondering if you are meaning the Greek Gods or just God - that supreme infallible omnipotent omniscient etc. etc. being.

Interesting thoughts

and thanks for the history lesson: I honestly did not know about the presidents' backgrounds etc...

However looking at the way Hillary is spending money on her campaign at the moment, I doubt her possible success could be in the same rank as her husband's...


RE tall poppies
yes that is basically right,
but like a lot of cultural motifs there are large variations as to whether it is mainly a cutting down of ambitious people or a propping up of the "less successful"
- FROM THE INCREDIBLES
in relation to some graduation ceremony from the 5th to 6th grade...

so, as a part of TPS: you could either:
- Celebrate mediocrity
- Loath success through loathing arrogance
- or a combination of the two

I don't think anyone has ever compared Superman to the Biblical God. There is no way that Superman could be regarded as omnipotent, omniscient and eternal. But for all of that, he is still like a god - a lesser god, of course. But still.

I get the feeling that most of you here may be less impressed with the idea of Superman than I am. I think almost all of you are younger than me, and most of you have grown up in America, surrounded by cartoons and TV shows about various amazing and 'super' heroes and characters:







In view of all this, what is so amazing about Superman? Isn't he just one more shallow cartoon character? Another one of those innumerable colorful superpowered fantasy heroes?

Doesn't everybody know that characters like these are not real? Why is Lois so shallow that she can't see it? Does she believe in the Incredible Hulk, too?

Okay. When I grew up in the sixties, there was one channel on Swedish television. Toward the end of the sixties there were two. Usually there was something on TV between five p.m. and maybe 10.30. p.m. Most of the time, therefore, there was nothing on:



There were never cartoons on TV. Okay, I take that back. There were cartoons on TV on Christmas Eve. They were Disney cartoons:



So on Christmas Eve in the sixties, I and my brother and probably all other kids in Sweden who had a TV set in their house sat down between three and four o'clock to watch Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Snow White, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp and others wish us a Merry Christmas. It was the magical moment of the year for kids in Sweden!

But did we have Super Friends cartoons on TV?



Did my brother have Action Man dolls?



Did we have computer games?



No!! Forget it! We didn't have any of that. We did have comic books. The heroes of most of them were not all that fantastic, however. They weren't elevated that far over what could be considered 'normal':



To me, Superman was absolutely one of a kind. He was the absolutely only one I came across who was superstrong and could fly. He was so unbelievably amazing! He was totally incredible!



I knew, of course, that Superman was nothing but a fantasy. But once in a while I asked myself what it would have been like if he had been real. How would people have reacted? Oh my! Oh my! "It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Superman" doesn't even begin to describe the super-sensation he would have created! Elvis Presley, eat your heart out.

I can't help feeling that maybe some of you are unimpressed with Lois's infatuation with Superman because you are unimpressed with Superman himself. To you he may be just another cartoon character. But to me, he was once as fresh and new and amazing as a brilliant and wonderful surprise on a morning when the world itself seemed new. So how could I ever blame Lois for admiring him and wanting him?

Ann