Okay, I need to put in my 2 cents worth in the debate going on here.
In this story, the Clark persona is taking a backseat to the Superman persona, especially in relation to Lois. Superman has become the dominant personality where Lois is concerned, so naturally Lois is going to get closer to him. Another poster mentioned that Clark seems to have channelled all of his geekiness and fear and insecurities into the Clark persona, and that's a large part of the reason that I agree that Lois would probably go ballistic at Clark but would probably be disappointed in Superman when either of them tells her the truth about the dual identity thing.
I’m sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more. Firstly, just because Clark comes to Lois in his suit, it doesn’t mean he’s presenting himself in his Superman persona. Just because Lois calls him Kal-El, it doesn’t mean she’s embracing Superman only. As I have pointed out in my review, this story has gone far beyond separate personas. Clark is presenting himself as he truly is, a flawed, naive being with a fragile heart who is an alien and superhero as well as being the most wonderfully human man Lois has ever met. Lois acceptance of him is more complete and unreserved in this story than in any I have ever seen.
There are two obstacles between them. Clark is understandably in the throes of an identity crisis and can’t see that Lois’ rejection of him as her hick partner is only based upon her own early misconceptions which she has not yet moved past, and also her preoccupation with her relationship with Kal-El. Largely the latter. I honestly fail to see how this is such a great betrayal on either of their parts.
The Clark’s failure to realize the reality and extent of Lois’s love and Lois’ failure to figure out Clark’s secret’s has everything to do with their own self-absorption and insecurities and nothing to do with any conscious betrayal. Loving each other the way they do, I find it unthinkable that the guise under which Clark chooses to reveal himself would matter to Lois’ reaction to it. She’s hardly that shallow!
Would Clark be more honest to carve a relationship with her as Clark only, any more than if he were to present himself as Superman? She would be investing her feelings in the promise of a relationship with only half the man, in either case. In the scenario of Darkest Dreams, Lois enters the relationship with both eyes open. She’s in love with the real, whole man. Now all she has to do is prove it.
As for Lois failing to see Clark is also Superman, well, it isn’t anyone’s fault. It’s Siegel and Shushter’s who, in their infinite wisdom, decided that there would be no interesting love triangle to keep readers hooked if Lois was allowed to use her razor-sharp intellect and intuition and see the obvious. If a guy can fly around in tights and a cape, he can also pass himself off as a mild-mannered reporter to his dearest friends. It’s one of the foundations of the mythos. Why should a woman blindly in love be expected to see what those of clearer heads and more experience can’t either? Why is nobody bashing Perry, Jimmy, Henderson, Maggie Sawyer, Bobby Bigmouth etc. etc.?
And if people disagree with that, fine. Write a fic where Lois sees Superman for the first time and goes “Clark, where on earth did you get that ridiculous get-up?”. Well, it’s hardly unfeasible! Would’ve been my reaction! But of course, no one will, because what would be the point of that?
In fact, Richard Donner’s Lois figured it out quite sensibly on her own before Richard Lester stepped in and decided that was not a profitable plot development and wrote in the memory-wiping kiss.
Fact is, Lois is blind because we want her to be. We like yelling at her and groaning in frustration when she doesn’t figure it out. We LOVE the near-misses that carry on the sexual tension and their eternal love triangle!
So it’s one thing to enjoy this kind of unrealistic farcical comedy. It’s a whole other thing to diss Lois’ character because of it. How can you blame a puppet for being puppeteered? It’s irrational!
