i guess for me a clark without a lois is like an ed without a winry. I can see a winry without an ed and a lois without a clark, and I think they’d do fine even though I love it when they’re with their respective honeys
but a ed not totally devoted to a winry? a clark not dazzled over a lois?
nah that just completely destroys the character for me. if you don’t feel like she’s mega important and the best and get hearts in your eyes when you see her, you’re not the boys i love.
themetaisawesome asked: I agree that Clark definitely loses something if he doesn't have his love for Lois in his life and while I agree that Lois without love for Clark is still Lois, I feel Lois misses something too. She loves him cus Clark can keep up with her, he makes her laugh, and he worships the ground she walks on. The two are yin and yang, and they share those roles too. Clark is masculine (yang) but gentle (yin), whereas Lois is feminine (yin) and aggressive (yang). Without one, the other is incomplete.
I do agree, to an extent. I think with Lois, it’s important she has Clark in her life as someone to balance her out and keep up with her, but she’s a relateable character even on her own. But Clark NEEDS his connection to Lois- it’s through her that we see how he loves people and what he loves in them, and that’s an essential part of showing a superhuman man as human- Lois is representative of how extraordinary an ordinary woman can be. She’s also flawed and vulnerable as humans are, yet her strength equals his. And having Clark love that about her shows his understanding of humanity, HIS essential humanity.
Of course on a meta level, Lois is such an essential and constant part of the mythos that yes, it loses something if they aren’t partners, aren’t in love. Look at any other hero and their romantic partner won’t be as deeply ingrained in the mythos of the hero as Lois is with Clark. Batman has multiple love interests and there wasn’t ever a single one from the beginning. Steve Trevor got killed off multiple times in the main continuity even before the crisis and has been dropped from the mythos a lot. But Lois has always been a constant, the relationship with Lois has always been. She was in the very first comic and she stayed. She got her own comic, she costarred in a tv show even, right in the title! And that’s a testament to the importance of her character- both the strength of her archetype and personality and how she completes the mythos of Superman, how she completes Superman. She and Clark’s love for her is ESSENTIAL to it. And people who don’t get that are ignoring how that has endured for up to 75 years.
Anonymous asked: I think part of the problem is that it's "shipping" but it's more than that bc Lois is so deeply ingrained in Superman. Lois's marginalized and misused in the new 52 but she's still Lois. Whereas he's almost unrecognizable when he doesn't love her. You can argue that a Superman who doesn't love Lois isn't Superman. It's that deeply ingrained.
Welp. Anon wins the prize.
You said everything I haven’t been able to figure out a way to put into words. That’s amazing.
And while this is all about Lois Lane night (apparently — I dunno how that happened), I’d also like to note that part of the factor as to what’s so alienating about Clark now is that we’ve lost Ma & Pa Kent in the same, foul swoop. There is literally nothing keeping him tethered to humanity now. And, as much as I think Diana is great, she is not an anchor to the everyman he needs. (Nor is Clark the equalizing force that provides proof of what Wonder Woman stands for — though you could argue that’s more of a meta problem because Superman will always take precedence in the cultural mind over Wonder Woman)
Lois is the most important component to keeping Clark the man we need him to be as an audience, but on top of that we’ve also lost Ma & Pa Kent who were so beloved and important to his establishment that one of the first retcons of the Post-CoIE timeline was to bring them from the Superboy comics to Superman.
But, again. Just… wow, Anon. You got it.
I can see him doing it, but not committing to it as that’s not nearly as catchy as his name and it sounds weird. And Winry Elric is worse ew. Honestly I think they’d both keep their own names
I think they would too personally. Winry I think would want “Rockbell” in the name of her eventual automail shop to honor her grandmother- i think her family’s automail legacy is EXTREMELY important to her, remember when she was like “we’ve been in business since!!!” She’d couldn’t let go of that legacy to take someone else’s name.
and Ed I think would want to keep carrying Trisha’s name in memory of her.
Their kids would either be hyphenated or get to choose what last name they wanted.