Posted By Mackenzie and Walker on April 20, 2013

We’re now eighteen months into the New 52, the reboot of the DC Universe designed to give the core characters a fresh, contemporary edge. That has, to an extent, resulted in high collars, extra seams, and a return of 90’s writers and artists to the forefront of DC. Otherwise, we have seen traditional relationships reshuffled, old partnerships divided, and critical character elements recast and re-evaluated.

One of the most notable changes has been the retroactive annulment of the Lois Lane – Superman marriage. Their unique love triangle, eventually resolving into 90s-tastic nuptials and then a healthy, functional marriage, is now kaput.

Editorial commentary presaging the change centred on the excitement, the narrative frisson, made possible by the classic formula. They spoke of legendary archetypes from the Silver Age and the dynamism they thought would be present by putting Superman’s romantic life in perpetual strain and disarray. DC has articulated various reasons for why they have emphasised a decline in the Lois Lane – Superman relationship: the desire not to “burden” Superman with permanent romantic attachments, the desire to allow an “anything can happen” approach to the fresh continuity, or the desire to return Superman to a more “youthful” status by suggesting that whatever may yet be between them, Superman isn’t quite ready to settle down yet.

Unlike Spiderman’s marriage woes which were (literally) undone by a deal with the Devil, Superman’s relationship with Lois Lane appears never to have happened. The operative word remains “appears” because, even eighteen months in, the critical relationship between Clark Kent – Lois Lane – Superman remains unexplained and largely unexplored.

The now ubiquitous “Lois and Clark’s relationship” opener

Every writer – even the incredibly bold Grant Morrison on Action - seems reluctant, even when regularly featuring Lois, to have her to do anything or state what the status quo is. The argument could be made that there are a host of characters who have been introduced who have yet to make a significant mark, that decompression means we’ll surely get to Miko and Perry and Jimmy before the turn of the next decade. Nonetheless, this isn’t good enough. This is Lois, a character so quintessentially important to Superman’s emotional makeup as to literally make and unmake universes (see Superman Beyond for a heartwrenching, if now redundant, telling of this yarn). Lois, arguably the most recognised female comic character ever, has been reduced in the New 52 to a lipservice recognition.

Like with anything in comics, there is some scope for debate about whether or not Lois’ role is quintessential to the character of Superman. Is she a true necessity for a classic Superman story or is she famous simply because she is older than grandmothers? In a world with so few truly exemplary female comic characters, the question surely is not “Do we have to have Lois to have Superman?”. Surely the question has to be, when she isn’t tied down by marriage to Superman, what awesome things are DC going to do with Lois?

With or without a ring on her finger, you would think that there would be a role for an intelligent, courageous, independent woman somewhere in Clark’s circle…and if not in his, in ours. Sadly, not only has Lois made minimal appearances in the Superman comics of the New 52 thus far, her appearances have been such that we had to wonder whether or not the “contemporary Lois” is not just in a holding pattern, but actively stepping backwards for Lois in particular and for the role of women in comics in general.

Fortunately, we had to hand a ready basis of comparison. DC has published collected editions of the Superman Family stories of the 50s and 60s, collectively referred to as the “Showcase Presents: Superman Family” . Lois Lane, of course, had her own comic during this period, in which she had her own adventures.

In an era where nostalgia causes the revival of any number of concepts from comics history by virtue of their simple pre-existence (reason for a column unto itself), why is it that Lois Lane is relegated to the role of a tertiary character? Is it possible that the 1960’s offered a more progressive place for Lois Lane?

Progressive is probably the wrong word. Even the quickest glance will demonstrate that Superman’s Girlfriend is hardly some pinnacle of egalitarian participation. The stories are pretty crazily sexist (not to mention often downright racist and generally bizarre).

Nobody is advocating this.

Nonetheless, despite Lois’ primary goal being to drag Superman to the altar, she went about it with a degree of ruthless obsession and ingenuity that leaves the Luthor of the era lying in the dust. No super-science, no cunning ruse, no sacrifice, was too great in her pursuit of her goal. Judging purely by the resources he expends to keep her from discovering his secrets, she was without doubt Superman’s greatest opponent as well as his girlfriend.

Let us, for the sake of argument, take the position that this classic pre-marriage romantic triangle, surely the expected default after an annulled marriage, is demeaning to both of them. Let us accept it is therefore dead. Putting aside the time she used a giant magnet to prove Superman was using robots doubles to protect his secret identity, or when she took experimental toxins to reverse the aging process and stay sexy, what else does Showcase Lois have to tell us?

Showcase Lois pulls the sword from the stone and becomes the Queen of Amazons. Showcase Lois is forced to go undercover as a fraudster impersonating herself to catch con artists. Showcase Lois is adopted by a pack of wild jungle cats and becomes Leopardgirl, a heroic she-Tarzan destined to fight smugglers, poachers and cannibals. And that is just scratching the surface. Showcase Lois’ encounters turn her into a Cleopatra of Cosmetics, a Metropolis Mermaid romantically linked with Aquaman and a medium channelling the spirits of dead mobsters. These stories, for all of Superman’s patronising involvement, don’t arise from her close connection with him, but because she has her own crazy pulp adventures. It is, Lois would assure you, part of the life of the world’s best investigative reporter in a universe as bizarre as the DCU of the ‘60s.

Just a typical week for an ace reporter.

If the New 52 is less whimsical, it is nonetheless advertised as a return to the wondrous. There are alien planets, ghosts, time travellers and elemental messiahs.

In this era of Silver Age revival, where Barry Allen, the League of Batmen and the Phantom Stranger have returned to glory, why can’t we progress to the wild and wondrous sorts of stories and premises that Lois encountered whenever she did turn her attention away from Superman? Why can’t we be lucky enough to have a “Lois Lane, Superman’s Respected Work Colleague” title?

Doesn’t it make more sense for a top flight reporter to be actively bringing to light the stranger elements of the DCU? Doesn’t that imply regular visitation to Superman’s sphere of influence, an opportunity to offer fresh perspectives and engage in derring-do? To be fair, Gail Simone brought Lois in to do some classic reporter shenanigans in Batgirl, but as much as we enjoy Batgirl and the work being done there, there must be a place for Lois in the universe at large. By the same token, Andy Diggle’s abortive Action run (one issue!) gave us a cracking Lois, albeit in such a truncated manner as to prevent us from seeing more of her under his pen. Action is being rounded out by Tony Daniel (who, no comment on his artistic skills, has yet to wow as a writer) and Scott Lobdell (whose issues with feminism in the DCU have been well documented). This doesn’t bode particularly well.

Surely there is a year’s story in the idea of the Amazons being brought into the modern age by a spunky American feminist (had they not now, unfortunately, been turned to stone)? Surely the relationship between the secret military-industrial complex of the anti-heroic General Lane (who, we note, has not only been returned to the bosom of continuity but been better fleshed out than his daughter) and an investigative reporter could be fun on its own merits without even needing Clark to stand between them?

Lois Lane circa 1972

We’re not the first people to suggest that a return to a solo title would be good for Lois. And we’re not so unaccountably brilliant as to think that this idea is beyond the boffins at DC to consider. So is there some kind of conspiracy to keep Lois from the front pages?

We can really think of only three reasons why this might be the case:

1. Because Lois Lane is “only” Superman’s girlfriend
2. Because she has no superpowers
3. Because DC is trying deliberately to take her entirely off-screen so she can be forgotten (but if so, why introduce her again in the first place?)

Taking the issues in reverse, DC may still keenly feel the need to reproduce, in the broad strokes, the critical elements of the mythos. There are business necessities which doubtless prove convincing when the powers that be meet to discuss exactly how far the New 52 should go off book. Lois, amongst other things, is to be a major character in this year’s Man of Steel film, played by multiple Oscar nominee Amy Adams. The notion of comics as IP storage facilities certainly has been shown to be a relevant consideration in the past.

Still, for all that comics can be conservative; the New 52 has been willing to make some fairly drastic changes. Many characters, aside from their name, are unrecognisable. If we accept that the fandom demanded that Lois exists, it’s surely insulting both to those who wish to see Lois and those who don’t care for her to have her presence half-heartedly included. It seems obvious, even without the benefit of hindsight, that this solution is unlikely to be optimal for anyone, and doesn’t form the basis of a solid compromise. Given the drastic changes already made to Superman, it seems likely that no more harm would be done by the removal of Lois Lane than her sidelining. It may be that DC had some concerns that if they simply didn’t refer to Lois, she’d be primed to be reintroduced, bringing with her whatever perceived problems had been associated with her to necessitate the change. Absent, she is fantastic in potentia, present (in her current state) she readily becomes humdrum and forgettable.

Likewise, lack of superpowers, even of the Charles Atlas variety found in Bruce Wayne, Oliver Queen and Kate Kane, seems like an unsuitable reason to keep Lois Lane from shining. Though the New 52 has emphasised a focus on the super-people rather than their supporting cast and bureaucracy, DC has still managed to devote time and effort to characters who form part of the distinctly human, rather than superhero tier. Justin Jordan’s recently launched (and yet more recently cancelled) Team 7 has a number of characters who are not required to be any more unique than Lois Lane, foremost amongst them Amanda Waller, who has nevertheless been a lead character since the first day of the New 52. Steve Trevor, though a military man, is often thought of as a distaff Lois Lane, and he has had a distinct and active niche allocated to him – even though he is no longer dating Wonder Woman. His roles as the iron spine of ARGUS, the handler for the Justice League of America and the Boswell for Justice League Dark are a stark example of everything Lois Lane has not achieved in her gig as new media queen in Morgan Edge’s empire. It would be hard in the circumstances to say that the mere “lack of powers” is a sufficient distinguishing measure.

Steve Trevor, in an integral role, without his former love interest.

We suspect that sadly, the answer lies somewhere between the “first limb” of the conspiracy, and simple oversight. Whilst various people have suggested a Lois Lane solo title before (at least to the public), it may be that those pitches, for reasons that are never fully categorised, are rejected. Some conscious/semiconscious/subconscious process may suggest that Superman’s “girlfriend” is ultimately “replaceable.” The sad and simple truth may be that if challenged on why Lois isn’t front and centre in the new DCU, the powers that be might well honestly state that Lois wasn’t deliberately marginalised or excluded. Pitches were made for the Superman titles, and titles allocated on the strength of those pitches. Whatever the initial plans may have been, it may be that Lois, as “Superman’s Girlfriend”, simply didn’t register as important enough in those pitches to have a defined space, and when the time came for writing stories, in the absence of a role for her, editors and their chosen struggled to find her a natural place. Maybe, in an increasingly sales-over-prestige focussed market, the editorial club wasn’t “grabbed” by the idea of a fearless reporter at the forefront of the DCU, when they felt that more “dynamic” approaches could be reached with girlfriends who could potentially and problematically (a) carry a title on their own and (b) punch Superman in the face when called for (the traditional method of displaying conflict in comic books)

This seems particularly likely when, despite some indicators of a will-they won’t-they, DC has held firm on the pairing of Superman and Wonder Woman, taking part of the classic Lois role away from her (even as Azzarello has Wonder Woman’s attention focussed elsewhere) . Certainly the speed with which the relaunch occurred and the necessary problems between running two unconnected titles in the distant past and the modern day have to be contributing factors to this issue. Perez’ abortive Superman run was clearly meant to call back to the classic iconography of ‘90s comics. He quickly found that you cannot do Lois & Clark: the Twitter Years without a free hand to describe what Lois is getting up to this week.

 An eerily accurate prediction?

Like so many problems that superhero comics face on gender issues, this may not be a retread of the same old story – not conscious malice but simply the internalised assumption that the audience is a boy’s club, uninterested in who Superman shares his life with beyond how well depicted the latest spandex clad honey to cuddle up to him is. That’s reductive, certainly, but also reflects a real failure to appeal to a general audience beyond the kind of people who will buy Red Hood and the Outlaws without breaking stride.

It’s ironic then, that the role of the woman journalist (a staple of female focussed fiction) might have represented something with a little more cross spectrum appeal, whilst still serving as a gateway drug to the superhero oeuvre. The decision to focus on the “core market” leads not only to problematic gender assumptions, but also to a lower quality of art. By narrowing what you’re willing to publish, you necessarily cut yourself off from more inventive stories, but also ensure that you get a good deal of repetition in your product. Even all things being equal, a real risk in the new 52 (now seemingly evidenced in the sales figures) is that producing extremely similar stories leads to plenty of purchases only at the top of the pack. Cross promotion may represent more of a challenge, but it also might be the hard road that builds an audience for more titles than the superlative superhero stories being produced month to month.

Someone, somewhere, failed to recognise the opportunity that a relaunch provided for Lois Lane, even within the more than slightly worrying paradigm of “marriage makes you less interesting”. Lois could make tentative steps in that direction whilst still making use of the Superman mythos, and retaining the elements which appeal to the ”core demographic”. There is room, if Showcase Lois teaches us anything, for all the punching and fantastic transformation key to Superman stories in any story where the reporter is the headliner.

With DC releasing new titles in regular tranches, it is by no means too late to take steps to redress the balance. Scott Snyder’s upcoming Superman Unchained has been said by him to feature Lois in a significant way. Lois Lane will be featuring in a new movie this year. Her name is instantly recognisable to anyone who would be interested in buying a comic. Even if DC doesn’t consider there to be a market to sustain a Lois Lane title, like Steve Trevor, there are dozens of other comics in which her role could be explicated. Given the Marvel Movie Universe has made use of Nick Fury to draw connections between its various characters, wouldn’t it make sense for a canny investigator into the weird and preternatural to draw disparate threads together in a similar way? Nothing has happened yet to prevent Lois from having a life of incredible adventures – she remains, thankfully, in good health, at large, and unsaddled with negative character traits which could turn her from a nothing into a negative. Given that DC has chosen thus far to make her a blank slate, isn’t it time she be given something to make her part of the grand design?

Related posts:

Categories: Comics
Tags: Action Comics, analysis, character profile, comics, criticism, DC Comics, gender, Lois Lane, New 52, ShowCase, Silver Age, Superman, Superman Unchained