Well, Lana didn't die in the much talked-about "death" episode of Smallville. So not only is she already Clark's lover here, but the kids being raised on this show may demand that she should be the one that Clark ends up spending all his life with. And since Chloe didn't die either, her fans might demand that she should be Superman's future wife.

Meanwhile, in the upcoming new Superman movie, Lois is shown as having moved on with her life, so that she apparently has a son by her new boyfriend. It is by no means certain that she and Clark will end up together in this movie.

The overall picture emerging here is that Lois is looking less and less like Clark's one true love and soulmate. She looks a lot more like one of many possible love interests for him, one that he may or may not spend his life with. Also, seeing that Clark has already lost his virginity to Lana on Smallville, and she might not be the one he ultimately ends up with, he might come out looking like a man open to more than one relationship.

Do you think it is important that Lois should be the one true love for Clark? Also, do you think it is important that Clark should have an intimate relationship with only one woman in his life?

Ann

Edited to include 'spoilers' in header - LabRat

Hmmm...an interesting question. I am open to different possibilities depending on the different incarnations of the story. In the context of Lois and Clark, I feel like Clark has to be with Lois and I don't really like fanfic that has them with other people. The idea of Clark's virginity had a reasonable justification, despite its improbability in today's society.

In Smallville, I don't mind Clark being with Lana (despite my opinion that she's a needy, pathetic, whiny character) because that's the relationship which was meant to develop on that show. I would prefer him to be with Chloe, though - her character has drive and spunk. I'm only marginally tolerant of their Lois. The episode where Clark lost his virginity to Lana seemed very realistic; the justification for why they haven't had sex since then is pretty lame. And, of course, the last episode seems to have been written to break the characters apart.

Your spoiler info from the movie of Lois possibly having a child from a previous relationship feels wrong to me, but I'm thinking of the Lois as presented in L&C. Mad Dog Lane was so focussed on her career that I believe she would use protection to ensure nothing stood in her way from getting the next scoop. However, I'm open to seeing what alternate universe the movie presents. I have enjoyed some L&C fanfic where this idea has been explored. I can be persuaded to accept it if Lois and Clark come together in the end.

Long post warning. Also opinion post warning.

So, how many women should Superman have?

Well, if he's Clark Kent/Superman - one. And if it's the great iconic love affair between CK/S and Lois Lane that you care about, then also one - Lois Lane. It's part of the "story" that we've grown up with, like Robin Hood and Maid Marion.

A character who loves many people, really loves none in any special way and so there is no great mythic love.

Even the show Smallville trumpets that he has and will only ever have one love and that is Lana Lang, a premise the show has underscored by writing Lois Lane into the show but having nothing happen between the two.

So what about an adolescent, hormonal fling with a girl he was attracted to? Yes, maybe - in the heat of the moment, etc., at an age where he's not really sure what love is.

Nevertheless, there's the character issue - one of the things that distinguishes CK/S (but not the so-called Clark Kent of Smallville) is his integrity. Clark Kent is a gent (to quote a song lyric ) and also a thoughtful individual.

Acts have meaning, and so, although I can certainly see him, as an emotionally and morally immature adolescent, having a sexual encounter in a hormonal moment, I can also see him really thinking more seriously than the average adolescent about the implications of that act. For him, intimacy is potentially threatening because of his secret powers. I think he would be cautious, where an Earth-boy would not necessarily have to be. So, given both his integrity, and the implications of his unique characteristics, he would perhaps put the brakes on

I don't think Clark Kent is about casual relationships, either emotional or sexual.

The idea of Clark involved with (loving?) many women is a an old-fashioned, traditional notion that puts "the woman" back in her place, removing her from any significant role in the myth. She is not important - it's the guy who counts, well, because, he's the guy. So she's only important as someone who can do something for him or reveal something about his character or advance the A plot. After she's served those purposes, he moves on.

Of course, this poll depends on our definition of "love". So defining it as that one great emotional, symbiotic, engulfing passion between soul-mates brings us a different answer to the poll than if we define love as "we get along and we bring each other needed skill-sets" or "we have a pleasant sex life"^.

In real life, people often settle for this type of 'comfort' relationship, in the absence of the other, and there's nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, very sweet in a way. And if the guy is a good carpenter, I say go for it.

But great love it's not, and so it's kind of boring. Certainly not mythic, nor the stuff from which dreams are made.

Okay, changing direction again - this time in direction of the "iconic love affair". There are very few of those about in our culture, but Lois Lane and Clark Kent's relationship is one of them.

What makes a love affair iconic is its exclusivity plus the heroic (which is most definitely not to say 'saintly') character of each of the two individuals involved. Their character traits matter; those of one are integral to the other. Also, their love is unique in both its commitment and its passionate intensity.

They are destined for each other and for no one else.

Last comment - Clark having more than one love sucks the romance right out of his relationship with Lois (or anyone else for that matter) – if she's just one woman on the list, then what's so special about it? He'll move on so why should we care all that much?

All this supposes too, that you're a fan of Lois Lane, which I realise some on these boards are not. Nevertheless, in the Reeves movies, in the comics, and of course in L&C:TNAoS it's the Lois Lane relationship that's an important part of the story.

Bottom line, Lois Lane is part of what makes the Superman story so special. Now if his character were different, say like that of Batman, he would go through several relationships, but we wouldn't care about any of them particularly, or the character of Superman either unless, like fan-boys, we were really into action figures.

Does any of this make sense?

c. (fan of Lois Lane and Clark Kent and perhaps a hopeless romantic)

^ edited at admin's request - sorry, guys for using anatomical terms

I've always been one who enjoyed the concept of Lois being the 'only' woman for Clark. The only one who can 'complete' him. That's one reason I liked the way they presented the relationship in Lois and Clark.

I dismiss Smallville out of hand so anything that happens there has no bearing on the characters. If the TPTB hadn't done so many other things wrong with the series I could almost except it as an Elsewords type situation.

In the comics, Clark has always been very responsible when it comes to dealings with the fairer sex. But he's hardly been disinterested.

In the pre-crisis days Superman, as a college student, fell in love with Lori Lemaris and asked her to marry him. Of course, this was before he'd met Lois Lane. But even though it 'wasn't meant to be' Clark thought he was in love. He wasn't a ladies man, but he had feelings for more than one woman as an adult. In the pre-crises comics he had a hard time figuring out his feelings for the two ladies who were after him as Superman. He vacillated between Lois and Lana throughout the run because, frankly, teenage boys (who the comics were aimed at) thought it was cooler to have too hot chicks after you, than to commit to a loving relationship with just one.

After the 1987 retcon, things changed somewhat. Lana was relegated to just a teenage crush from Clark's past. Lois became the one truly important woman in his life. Still, they brought back Lori Lemaris as a, sort of, romantic ghost from the past.

So, it seems that the comics never acknowledged this 'soulmates' instant recognition sort of thing, but did allow Lois and Clark to come to the realization that they are meant to be together. No one can 'ground' Superman/Clark the way that Lois does. Not even his parents. She has become the personification for all the reasons why he does what he does.

Do Lois and Clark belong together? Of course they do. Was it always a forgone conclusion? Not necessarily. In the comics, Superman always felt that he could never actually marry anyone because of the danger it would present it anyone ever knew that some woman was that close to Superman. Unfortunately, it took fifty years for Superman to realize that he could have a relationship with a woman, only he'd have to have it as Clark Kent.

Tank (who isn't sure if he stayed on topic, but that's alright, because Lois always has been, and always will be the one that Superman/Clark ends up with, no matter how long it takes him to get there)

Lois belongs with Clark, period.

I didn't like the fact that Clark slept with Lana in Smallville, but at the same time it does make Clark more human. (Kind of ironic he didn't have his powers when he did sleep with her. lol)

Frankly, I was a bit surprised they made Clark a virgin in Lois and Clark, only because I figured Clark probably would have experimented. I don't see him "sleeping around," but if Lana was the love of his life like he thought, I could see him making love to her, but then realizing things just weren't going to work out.

I have nothing against premarital sex, but I think I was most disturbed by Clana on Smallville, because I don't think this Clark knows what love is. He lusts after Lana, but I don't really think he knows what he wants. I also compare most everything to LnC because it was the show that got me into the Superman genre to begin. If anything after that doesn't closely follow what I know the story of Superman being, I don't like it.

So in conclusion, I voted for Clark being with Lois, but it also being okay that he was with someone else before her.

Call me weird I guess...lol

I had to think about my answer for a bit. I finally voted "Lois" and "two relationships."

I actually hesitated on the first question and found myself torn between "I want him to end up with Lois" and "I don't care who he ends up with as long as it's romantic and I like her."

Ultimately, I don't care who he ends up with. However, it's important to me that regardless of the relationship he's in he is not an asshat, which, unfortunately, cannot be said of SV's Clark Kent. I think I could tolerate the Clana much better if he wasn't such a mopey, whiney tool with stalkerish tendencies and she wasn't such a self-involved brat.

Secondly, for me the Lois and Clark relationship is kind of a by-product of Lois Lane being a meaningful player in the story. I don't enjoy the Superman myth (all incarnations) because of Clark/Superman but because of Lois Lane. She intrigues me much more than he ever did. So any telling of the story that does not feature her prominently automatically becomes uninteresting to me. Whether she is romantically involved with Clark is really secondary to me, but it's only logical that if she's the main female character she's going to end up with him. (This is one of the many, many reasons I don't like SV: while Lois is great on the show, she's underused and was only brought in to boost ratings. Now she's basically twiddling her thumbs. Not to mention that it entirely screws up L&C's future in Metropolis.)

The reason I enjoyed Lois & Clark was that Lois was given an important part in the story and both characters were likeable and smart. I liked the relationship they had, particularly before they got together, and I would be fine with a telling of the story that relegated their relationship to friendship as long as they treat each other with respect and (platonic) affection. (This is not to say that I didn't enjoy their romantic relationship on the show, but there were some aspects that grated on my nerves, like their frequent PDAs in the newsroom, or more often the conference room, which had big windows through which everybody could watch them. It was highly unprofessional and I just couldn't see Clark and particularly Lois acting in such a way at work. I was always waiting for a co-worker to walk by and hiss: "Get a room!")

As for Lois' new relationship in Superman Returns: has it been confirmed that the kid is actually hers and Richard's? That would serve no purpose whatsoever. I think there are four possibilities:

(1) The kid is Richard's from a previous relationship.
(2) The kid is the result of Lois and Clark's lovemaking in Superman II (which, as I understand it, is the starting point for the new movie).
(3) The kid is indeed Lois' and Richard's (in which case I won't be seeing the movie as it's so obviously an unneeded plot device to drive Lois and Clark apart).
(4) The kid was mysteriously dropped off in Lois' and Richard's living room with a note pinned to his shirt saying: "Lois and Richard, this child belongs to you." Now they're trying to figure out who the boy is and how to get rid of him.

I think the first two possibilities are much more likely than the third (and I would totally dig the fourth). But we'll see.

re Lori Lemarais - something very fishy about her

c.

All I ask is that he doesn't end up with Lex, which seems to be all too common in Smallville fanfic.

Interesting poll. I don't watch Smallville so I can't comment on who Clark should end up with in that show, but I took the poll itself and the answers it elicited as something more general that also concerns Lois and Clark fanfic.

While I like the idea of Lois and Clark's mythic love and Lois being Clark's first lover, I don't have anything against them having had other relationships before they got together. I'm not even restricting it to before they met each other. After all, in the beginning, things weren't that smooth in their relationship. Lois even ended up getting engaged (and almost married) to another guy. Clark waited patiently while Lois refused to see how she felt about him, but what if he hadn't been that patient? That's one thing I'm trying to explore in one of the WIPs on my hard drive. Of course, that would involve writing, which is something I haven't managed to do in months, but that's another issue.

I don't think that either of them having relationships with others before they got together lessens their love for each other once they do get together. Who in real life can pretend to have met the right person from the start? And okay, maybe it can happen, but even if you have relationships before you get together with the person you end up marrying, does that mean you're not truly in love with that person? Personally, I don't believe so. And since I'm absolutely convinced that Lois and Clark are very ordinary people (okay, bar the flying), then I don't mind such possibilities being explored in fanfic. Quite the opposite!

Just my humble opinion!

Kaethel

I would have voted "other" for question #2 personally, had it been an option.

I do think Clark Kent is meant to be with Lois Lane. To me, that's the whole point of this story. I will buy storylines where something happens to Lois, and he can't be with her (although I won't be really thrilled about them), as long as it's a given that he hasn't met her/still has his heart/what have you. Or if Lois and he are fighting like cats and dogs, she rejects him, so forth.

That being said, I could see Clark with someone else. Even <gasp> Lana Lang, IF--and this is the big if--the situation is right. If they were young teens before he met Lois, and Lana was a good friend (Terry Leatherwood has a story about this). If something were to happen to Lois. If his Lois is already dead.

And all of these scenarios presume that Clark treats whomever he is with respectfully, as befits how I perceive his character. He wouldn't just hop into bed, going from conquest to conquest without being affected by something (like Yvonne's story where he's into drugs). I just don't see him that way.

I don't feel I'm giving in to some kind of male chauvinist stereotype by saying this, because I think the same holds true for Lois. I will buy a storyline of Lois with someone else. But the circumstances have to be right, and there has to be a darn good reason why she's not with Clark (never met him, lost on NK, what have you).

However, if it's done as in Smallville, where he and Lois are ships passing in the night? No way.

And as an additional proviso, I don't really enjoy most stories where Clark or Lois is with someone else and stays with that person. I might buy the premise, but still not enjoy the story. I read these stories because I love Lois and Clark TOGETHER at the end of the day. I enjoy reality in stories only to a point. Otherwise, there's no point in fiction, because I can pick up the newspaper and be equally depressed.

I didn't think there was a Superman without a Lois Lane .

I don't mind Clark having a relationship before meeting Lois, but I want the story to make it clear that his relationship with Lois is different. They are soulmates. And so the relationship can't just be another relationship. It has to pack a greater emotional punch. Any other relationship has to pale in comparison.

ML

In a way I guess I don't need to post this. I could just ask you all to re-read Carol's lovely post, because she put down my own thoughts on this subject so beautifully. But let me add a few things, nevertheless.

When I asked you how many relationships you thought Clark could have, one of answers you could choose was that Clark should be experienced, because that would be more realistic. But in my opinion, realism has nothing whatsoever to do with Clark Superman Kent. In real life, no one even remotely like our favorite flying reporter could ever exist. Of course Clark couldn't just put on a pair of glasses and slick his hair back and hope that no one would recognize him, but there is so much more about this man we love that is impossible. He could never run off all the time without people getting suspicious; he could never fly in and out of his apartment without being found out very soon; so frankly, he couldn't have a civilian, "Clark Kent" identity at all. Also, realistically, what could be the source of his powers anyway? The simple fact that he looks totally human can, realistically, only mean that he is perfectly human. So the fact that he has superpowers must be due to the fact that he is a fantastic scientific experiment, like a test-tube baby, only incredibly more advanced. But there are limits to how powerful he could be, and realistically, he could never fly, for example. Being a scientific experiment, he would be owned and certainly controlled by those who had created him. It could be the government, the military, a huge corporation like Microsoft or even Time Warner. There, now. That's the "realistic" Superman, and we could speculate on what sort of love life he would most realistically have. But frankly I don't care, because this Superman holds no appeal to me whatsoever.

To me, Superman is a beautiful dream, a personification of my most cherished ideals of what the most wonderful man ever would be like. I'm not ashamed of this. I think it is an extremely human trait to tell stories about ideal characters, and I think we do it all the time. These larger-than-life characters are part of our religions and myths, but they are also part of popular modern stories like the Ring trilogy by J.R.R Tolkien and the Harry Potter series by J.K Rowling. A Swedish example, beloved by all Swedes, is Pippi Långstrump, Pippi Long-Stocking, the strongest girl in the world.

Superman is my own ideal man because I see him as a totally amazing man with god-like powers, who is kind, gentle and caring, and who has an extremely strong sense of responsibility. He is fallible like the rest of us, so he will make mistakes, but he will beat himself up terribly over them, and he will also do his very, very, very best to avoid making serious mistakes in the first place.

"My" Superman is a man who loves people. I think it makes him happy to be surrounded by them, and to see the heroism and courage and beautiful dreams that I think are found in almost all of us.

So "my" Superman has to love humanity, but that is not enough. To me, it's totally necessary that Superman loves one woman, and only one woman, with a purity and strength that is comparable to the strength of his body, and with a commitment that is every bit as strong as his commitment to help and protect humanity and the Earth.

The woman Superman has to love is Lois. Only Lois. Always Lois. And if he fails to do that, he is dead to me as an ideal. In 1980, in the movie Superman II, Clark made love to Lois. But because he was unable to deal with the consequences, he took away her memory not only of their lovemaking, but also of her true knowledge of him, of who he really was. He used her body, then invaded her mind and - well, I'm sorry to say it, but he totally violated her mind. I would use a stronger word, but I don't think it is permitted in this folder.... I can't tell you how upset I was. The purpose of his atrocious act seemed to be to make sure that he would never have to deal with having an honest, intimate, soul-baring relationship with Lois. To make sure that he would forever keep her at arm's length, fooling her with his cruel identity game. When I left the movie theater after seeing Superman II, I knew that Superman was dead to me as a character. And throughout the eighties, Superman was a fossil from my past, in no way a part of what was then my life and my dreams. Not until I learnt that he and Lois had become engaged in the comics in 1990 could he become a part of my life again.

So to me, how important is Lois to Clark? Well, people, how important is Juliet to Romeo? I'm sure you all know Shakespeare's great tragedy about two young star-crossed lovers, but let's repeat the bare bones of the story anyway. Romeo's and Juliet's families are mortal enemies, but Romeo and Juliet fall in love anyway, and are married in secret. After Romeo is banished from their home town of Verona after taking part in a violent street fight with fatal consequences, and after Juliet's father is determined to force his daughter to marry another man, Count Paris (and he couldn't care less if his daughter is married already), Juliet resorts to the desperate measure of drinking a very strong soporific, which makes her fall into such a deep sleep that she actually appears to be dead. Instead of getting married to a man she doesn't want, she is going to be placed in her family's crypt and left there, presumed dead. A kindly Fransican friar is going to send a message to Romeo and inform him about Juliet's true condition, but this fails, and Romeo arrives at the crypt, believing Juliet is truly dead. In desperation, refusing to live on if Juliet is dead, Romeo kills himself. Juliet wakes up, finds her lover dead, and she, too, kills herself.

Now let's re-write this story a bit. Romeo arrives at the crypt, finds Juliet dead. He shrugs, turns around, walks back to wherever he came from, and starts looking for new erotic adventures. Juliet wakes up, lies waiting for Romeo, gives up, walks home, and is forced to marry Count Paris. Would this ending ruin Romeo and Juliet to you? Would it specifically ruin Romeo as a character to you? It would to me. And if Clark ever turns his back on Lois - heck, if he loses Lois for whatever reason, even if the reason is that she dies - I will see Clark as the sort of Romeo who shrugs, turns around and walks away when he believes that Juliet is dead. Because you must remember that since Lois and Clark are fictional characters, Lois can only die if somebody decides that she must disappear for good, so that Clark can be rid of her. But if Clark loses Lois in any sort of permanent way, for any reason whatsoever, he will be unacceptable, and therefore dead, as a character to me.

Ann

I think Tank did a good job pointing out that the comics - which I consider the one and only true canon source for Superman, any incarnation - prove that while Lois ends up being the one for Clark/Superman in the end, she wasn't always. Nor was Clark/Supes portrayed to be a one-woman-only character, and never was it implied that he was any less of a hero for having loved Lori Lemaris or Lana Lang in addition to Lois. Those who claim that Superman without Lois isn't the real Superman should restate their comment correctly as Superman without Lois isn't their personal favorite version of Superman, the one they prefer. I would argue that only Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel are truly qualified to state which is the true, correct Superman that they originally envisioned, and for anyone else to do otherwise is more than a little presumptuous.

I don't like the Smallville relationship between Lana and Clark not because I don't think Clark could have (or should have) had a sweetheart in his past, but rather because the Smallville PTB are trying to shoehorn Lana into the entire Superman mythos. They give her significance far beyond being the girl Clark loved as a teenager. I could handle Clark believing Lana is his one true love, losing his virginity to her, and, heck, even wanting to marry her, all of this because he has yet to meet Lois. He's immature and this is his first experience, so he has nothing to compare it to. When he meets Lois, he learns what real love is all about. What I can't swallow in Smallville is how they've given Lana a key role in creating Superman. Not to mention they've made her such an unappealing character I don't know why any young man would want to be with her.

I did choose - and do believe - for question 1 that in the end, Clark/Superman belongs with Lois. Whatever path he (or she, for that matter) takes to get there, no matter how many people it is littered with, I do believe that these two are meant to be together. They compliment each other and complete each other, and I enjoyed LnC:TNAOS because it allowed me to watch their relationship unfold in a way that made sense to me.

But I'm firmly in the camp that there is no such thing as One And Only One Love for anybody, even mythical icons like Superman. I don't think that makes me an anti-Lois fan, nor does it make Clark/Superman any less of a hero. It makes me a person who prefers a more human version of Superman than the more two-dimensional plastic paragon of virtue that many others prefer. I think this is known as different strokes for different folks, and that's all.

Lynn

opinion warning again

Although I think that CK/S would be more cautious about entering a relationship with someone because of the implications of his 'secret' as well as his character, I can see that he might have been involved with people before he met Lois Lane. (am repeating here what I wrote in my orginal post, I know ) And also, as I said earlier, there are different types of love.

I'm probably reading this the wrong way, and if so I apologize, but I'm not sure that the complexity and humanity of CK/S's character, or anyone's for that matter, is determined *only* by his sex/love life. Can't a guy be faithful to the woman he loves and still have a multi-dimensional character? Be a tad woolly at times even?

Of course, I admit my bias - I do like the idea of that mythic love affair. (and yes, I know that's not RL - but since I've bought the idea of a guy who can fly, I'm buying the mythic love affair too. )

As ML said, "And so the relationship can't just be another relationship. It has to pack a greater emotional punch. Any other relationship has to pale in comparison."
Yes.

Ann has a good point about the betrayal of Lois in Superman II. Let's hope this new Superman movie undoes that betrayal.

It's been really interesting to see the different opinions expressed in this thread.

c.

Of course, I admit my bias - I do like the idea of that mythic love affair. (and yes, I know that's not RL - but since I've bought the idea of a guy who can fly, I'm buying the mythic love affair too.)

LOL, Carol. Seems a fair enough POV.

But perhaps this is part of what separates us. The thing that drew me to L&C, and kept me watching, was the fact that they set the Superman myth into a contemporary, real-life situation. Everything, bar the action and the flying, was as real as they could make it. I could suspend disbelief at the ludicrous monster-of-the-week stuff, the superhuman feats, and the embarrasingly stupid pseudo-science, because the rest of it was so realistic. They gave us Perry's marital problems, Lois's alcoholic mother, Jimmy's youthful attempts at relationships, Lex Luthor's complex, smooth, business-man villain, Jonathan's angst over Martha's life art classes, and so on.

So I don't need the mythic love affair. I'm enough of a romantic that I pretty much always want Lois and Clark to be together by the end of the story, but I don't mind how many twists and turns they take to get there. That's part of the realism I enjoyed so much in L&C.

Yvonne

oops

Yes, me too. Some verrrry over the top stuff there.

But the RL stuff, aside from Luthor's, was always a tad boring because it was so like what everyone I know (and me ) goes through. So... yeah, yeah.

But then there was the magic of Lois and Clark - not so ordinary, although their own circumstances and fears and dreams were very ordinary, and flawed. But above all that, the searing beauty of their sense of each other.

c.

I don't believe in 'mythic love affairs' either. I don't believe in soul mates or even that people get married and stay in love with their spouses for the next forty years. In fact, I think being 'in love' is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the human brain which is meant to feed our instinctual need to reproduce (talk about sucking the romance out of it )

And I really don't know much about other versions of Superman. I have never been much of a Superman fan. What I am is a Lois and Clark fan.

But the show, Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman did present Lois and Clark as soul mates - that they were destined to meet and fall in love life time after life time. Is it realistic? No. Is it part of the reason I love the story? Yep.

On the other hand, I like it when writers put them through hell and back before they end up together. (Does that make me a romantic or a sadist? )

ML

ML wrote:
LOL - it makes you a soap op fan!

And will take this op (no pun intended) to nag you about that new fic you outlined before Xmas.

c.

A couple additions to the comic book end of things.

First off I've been told by people who were in a position to know, that Jerry Siegel's original intent had been to let Lois in on the secret early on and for them to act as 'partners' in the fighting of crime. Apparently TPTB felt that it would be better to push that relationship in a different direction. Even back then they must have felt that once a 'couple' actually gets together the magic is gone.

You can say what you want about the comics and how they treat Lois, and 'the relationship' (I for one have complained many times that Lois had often been reduced to a few panels of window dressing over the years) but you have to give them props for the way they portrayed Superman/Clark's devotion to Lois a couple of years back. In a storyline (that was pretty ridiculous) Superman and Wonder Woman were trapped in a Vahalla-like dimension where they were forced to fight in one of those never-ending battles of the gods for something like a thousand years. Of course, when they came back, only a few hours had actually passed, but Clark and Diana had experienced the full duration cut off from the world they knew, with only each other for comfort. Under those circumstances who could blame old Supes if he 'strayed' a wee bit. But no, Clark was really the man of steel. His relationship with Diana remained platonic the whole time.

The interesting thing is that Superman never told Lois about his little adventure. But Diana did.

Tank (who thinks that there could be, at least, one other man for Lois... someone older, living in a trailer in a northern state where life could be a bit less hectic than a city like Metropolis)

I'm with Yvonne in that I loved LnC: TNAOS because they took a totally mythical character - Superman - and made him a real person. Up until that show, I had no interest in Superman. Sure, I had seen the movies. But as far as I was concerned, he was just one of those comic book characters.

But in watching LnC, I fell in love with the Lois and Clark relationship. I wanted them to be together, felt the chemistry between them, agonized when they kept getting so close only to be pulled apart again and again. These two people were as "real" as any television characters could be, and their romance remains one of my favorites out there.

I don't expect all love stories to reflect reality. In fact, the best love stories, IMHO, are the farthest ones from reality because they are so great. How many real-life love stories exist that come even close to being that wonderful? There are always those little human foibles that can't be ignored in RL, so entering a fantasy is blissful escapism.

Even so, we each have our own parameters of what we like and don't like. That's cool. One person's cup of tea is another person's ice cold lemonade. I like a human Clark/Superman complete with the heart and faults of a more realistic man. Others prefer the idealistic version. And, thankfully, there are stories to appeal to all sets.

Lynn

Me too. He'd be pretty boring otherwise. And I hope that's how I've always written him.
I guess that's what attracted me about the show too (as well as .... the L & C relationship, of course ) - this was a Clark Kent who was interesting because he was more realistic, definitely not a "perfectman".
But that said, there was still about the character something of the idealist - his compulsion to use his powers to help others, as well as his sensitivity towards others in his everyday life, and also his integrity.
So for me it's not an 'either/ or' issue - what I loved was that CK/S was both that flawed ordinary man (plus had a sense of humour!) and yet at the same time was heroic. His complexity.

Now I've wandered somewhat OT, towards discussing CK/S's character, but it's a bit difficult to separate that out from the poll topic.

c.

Now that, Carol, is something we can totally agree upon!

Yvonne

And I, having started the poll, think it's great that you are discussing Clark's character, because that is really what this question is very much about anyway.

And seeing that I am the one who has come out most strongly in favour of a mythic, iconic love story and a Clark who is totally devoted to Lois, let me say, nevertheless, that I agree with you that Clark must have a very human personality, and he must be complex and flawed. I know I keep calling him Superman, but that is just because I've been thinking of him that way since I was twelve. The point I'm trying to make is that the man who is destined to be with Lois must also have superpowers. But, while I'll never be able to see the Lois and Clark TV series as a self-contained thing, independent of all the stories that have been told about this man - and this romantic couple - in other media, I definitely agree with you that L&C gives us the hands down best ever portrait of Clark, and Clark is the man who matters. Because Clark must ultimately be the real person if he's ever going to be with Lois. During all those years when Superman was the real person and Clark was the nerdy disguise, there was no way that he and Lois could realistically be together. She could never officially marry the superhero, and she could hardly sneak off to see him regularly while pretending to be single all the time. And there was no way she could share her life with that empty shell of a person who was only a nerdy distraction to keep people from seeing the man in the super-suit beneath. Clark must be a real, fully fleshed-out, complex person, if Lois is ever to share her life with him. Which is why it worries me that the upcoming movie is apparently bringing back the the idea that Clark is no more than a stupid front to hide the true man in the spandex.

Ann

I'm an ardent Clark/Lois fan. But I also love the idea of Chlois, because SV's "Lois" doesn't have the essential Lois traits to me (ambition, dermination, and a love of journalism, to name a few) and I think Chloe is Lois in all ways but name, so . . .

I don't mind Clark having a few other relationships, but there should only be one love of his life, only one he wanted to spend the rest of his life with, and that should be Lois.

I've never understood those who keep trying to overlay Lois onto Chloe. I don't see it at all. Chloe's interest in journalism is the ONLY thing that Chloe has in common with Lois.

Chole hasn't really shown the drive or the determination that has always earmarked Lois' attacks on a problem. Chole just seems to have a magic deus machina computer that answers all her questions. The the way she acts around Clark shows that she has no self-respect, nor independance. She's merely a love-struck, mooney teen-ager who hasn't outgrown her illogical crush as she has aged.

Ms. Mack may be a reasonable actress, but I don't see people's infatuation with her. Chole is not particularly an interesting, or even likable character. She has no real personality.

Tank (who, through these and Zoom's boards knows way too much about a show that he doesn't watch very often)

I think Chloe's got it all. She is determined, she doesn't give up. She loves journalism with every fiber of her being. She wants to make the world a better place. She first worked for the DP at age fifteen, just like Lois. She was valedictorian like LnC's Lois. She took down a Luthor (abeit only briefly). She made a deal with a Luthor (comic Lois once did). She's now Clark's primary confidante, and he uses her as the example of why humans are not "insignificant and undependable" and I think it's quite interesting that she's the only one on the show urging him towards his "correct" destiny.

Also in the first ep of Smallville she was call "intrepid reporter" and she named Superboy.

I'm not "trying to overlay" anything. I've put a lot of thought of into this and it's my opinion.

You don't have to agree with me, but I certainly have reasons for my hope, not the least of which is that I find SV's Lois to lack the most essential Lois traits (ambition and love of journalism).