#Normally I stop just short of having “depiction is not endorsement” tatooed on my forehead

[artbyblastweave]

Drop your Lois Lane hot takes

(also if you're not a Superman fan, what would you recommend starting off with?)

So MAWS Lois Lane very pointedly has some significant character flaws, generally justified by her backstory and often the opposite side of the conventional "positive" Lois Qualities that she exhibits. Trust issues stemming from her canon-typical dysfunction with her father, upstream of her whole truth-to-power thing. Self-esteem issues and a sense of inadequacy, upstream of her tenacity and singleminded pursuit of her goals. Downstream from her self-esteem issues you've got a sensitivity to perceived betrayal or the idea that people are only pretending to value her. Self-assurance and confidence... that manifests as bouts of myopic thinking or lack of consideration for others. There's a level on which I like this more than S:TAS- she was fun in that, but the purpose there wasn't to give her any kind of arc. She's much more dynamic in this, she has a palpable crisis, and it all combines into a perfect cocktail demonstrating why she reacts so very, very badly to being out of the loop on Superman. In her position it's not insane to assume that Clark expressed interest in her just to jerk her around and sabotage her investigation more thoroughly. But in practice... I (and those watching with me, who joined me in screaming at the TV a bunch during the last couple episodes) felt that the narrative was both-sidesing the dynamic a bit uncomfortably, because Clark has very good reason to not trust Lois specifically with sensitive information. Their first interaction involved her manipulating him for the sake of advancing her career. She's been screaming from the rooftops that she dislikes Superman, wants to expose Superman's secrets, and he was on the verge of coming clean with her before that came up. She functionally threatens to kill herself to force him to out himself, right after he got back from the government (and very likely her father specifically!) trying to assassinate him. Very little of this was coherently voiced when they're having it out, and as a result it felt like the narrative was much more sympathetic to Lois's stance than Clarks, treating his concealing the information as the root of the problem here. And when Jimmy brings up that he's known for years but understood that it was probably a deeply personal situation that Clark would bring up when he was comfortable- that's not a catalyst for introspection about whether Lois is entitled to the information, it isn't used as the point to push the idea that both parties have valid motivations here. It's mostly just the catalyst for another gag where now Jimmy is upset that Clark told Lois first (without. You know. the context.) I walked away thinking that Clark doesn't have a disproportionate amount to apologize for in this situation. Not nothing, but not the brunt. The reconciliation arc really breezed past the fact that she threw herself off a building to force the issue. Any relationship where throwing yourself off a building is a tool in the toolbox seems like it might be on shaky ground, communicatively!

The thing is, well, honestly there's a few things. I'm willing to accept off the bat that I might be lily-orcharding a perfectly unobjectionable creative decision to some extent, because by default I'm really biased in favor of anyone trying to keep deeply compromising information about their identities away from their loved ones for fear of their negative reaction, and that's coloring the intensity of my negative response. Another thing is that I think the show is kind of a victim of the megashort season runs of contemporary cartoons- I mean we'll be lucky if we get 30 episodes of this show total, every arc is gonna be at least somewhat pinched when you get 10 episodes and change per season. And a third, final thing is that the season isn't over yet, and they've left themselves with a great springboard from which to address my misgivings.

Clark leans into the idea that he's the one at fault, begs forgiveness, and so on, but that's actually in character for this version; given that one of his biggest drives is to be accepted, it makes sense that he'd do whatever he thought he had to get things smoothed out as quickly as possible, even if there's still a lot going unaddressed below the surface. And Episode 7 (6?) is basically entirely about how Lois's character flaws, scaled up and appended to power, can turn out really really bad. Kryptonite is introduced in this continuity by a bunch of alternate-universe Lois Lanes who try to kill Superman without giving him the benefit of the doubt- all while never expressly communicating to anyone that the root of their concern is how badly things went with their own Supermen. Lois meets an army of herself and immediately, correctly assumes that they aren't on the up-and-up, that they're holding something back. And the episode ends with her in possession of both a Superman-killing tool and information engineered to set off her well-established paranoid tendencies about Clark.

So if the show is being smart- and there's a very good chance that it is- the next leg is going to be about how for a superhero, just being open about your secret identity to your loved ones isn't necessarily going to be enough to defuse the underlying tensions and failures to communicate; the fact that they really speed-ran the reconciliation is going to turn out to be deliberate, a bandaid fix on the deeper problem, and a much worse reckoning is in the pipes once it becomes obvious that Task Force X is headed by her estranged father. (Which seems like the twist they're going for with that- they've never said the general's name out loud, so I think they're going for a fakeout where we all assume it's Wade Eiling but it turns out to actually be Sam Lane.) However. I've definitely watched a bunch of shows where I kept going "If the show is smart," "If the show is smart," and then the show wasn't smart, and it just turned out that the writers themselves hadn't chewed on the implications of what they were depicting as much as I had. I've got high hopes, though.

(tagging @st-just, @best-wizard, and @howlingguardian, who all also asked for the elaboration.)