Comics

Twists, Turns, and Burns in 'Superwoman #2'

Lois Lane's loss is not Lana Lang's gain.


Matt Santorelli

Superwoman

Publisher: DC Comics
Price: $2.99
Writer: Phil Jimenez
Publication date: 2016-09-14
Amazon

We don't like to think about what happens to our beloved toys when they become outdated or obsolete. Most of the time, we're content to forget about them and enjoy our new toys. This happens a lot with characters as well, most of which are clones, time travelers, or visitors from an alternate universe. We expect their presence to become obsolete or unnecessary in most cases. Our expectations with post-Flashpoint Lois Lane are a bit harder to discern.

As with Superman, DC: Rebirth went to great lengths to put a lot of genies back in multiple bottles with Lois Lane. In addition to having another Superman replace the one that died, we also get another version of Lois Lane. She's the classic wife and baby mama of Superman and her story is now part of the overall Superman narrative. This leaves post-Flashpoint Lois Lane in a state of limbo, one she seems to fill by becoming Superwoman.

Unfortunately, her run as a superhero lasts for only one issue. It ends quite abruptly. There are chess matches between the Flash and Batman that last longer. Superwoman #1 ends in a way that makes the premise of the series feel like the fine print of a bad user agreement. It gives the impression that post-Flashpoint Lois Lane is obsolete and DC Comics just threw her away the first chance they got. Superwoman #2 attempts to create a story around this act, but it's a story built on a shaky, overtly fraudulent foundation.

Post-Flashpoint Lois is basically turned into a catalyst for Lana Lang to become Superwoman. It's not a classic act of "fridging" a female character. Lois Lane isn't murdered or butchered as a means to push Lana's story. She's just cut out of the dynamic, ensuring there's only one Superwoman. The fact that the Superwoman who doesn't have a counterpart from an alternate universe survives is quite telling.

By taking Lois Lane out of the narrative, the tone of Superwoman #2 takes a dramatic shift. It's either callous in that Lois' death quickly becomes a side-note, or just flat in that Lana's story fails to be that compelling. To his credit, Phil Jimenez makes a concerted effort to develop that story. It certainly helps that Matt Santorelli's art creates the right tone and ambience. It just never comes off as anything more than a consolation prize.

That story still has elements of mystery and intrigue. Superwoman's first major nemesis is revealed as Lena Luthor. It's a fitting, if not overly standard dynamic. If there's going to be a female Superman operating in the DC universe, then there should be a female Lex Luthor by default. In the spirit of gender equality, it's only fair.

There's also never a sense that Lena Luthor is just a female version of Lex, either. She goes out of her way to make that clear to Lex, albeit in a very uncomfortable manner. Then again, that only makes her more worthy of her role. If Superwoman #2 has a strength, it's that it doesn't try to just push female characters into male roles. It lets its female characters be female. It's one of those concepts that shouldn't feel so novel.

Even if Superwoman #2 checks all the boxes in terms of gender dynamics, it fails to check many more. The story quickly becomes choppy and bland. It's less about Superwoman and more about Lana Lang reacting to Lois' death. These reactions are lacking in emotional weight and only serve to put her in a position to fight more monsters. For a character as iconic as Lois Lane, this just comes off as crass.

Lana does get a good assist from her current lover, John "Steel" Irons. He plays the part of a supportive boyfriend, but not much else. He does little to move the story forward or add emotional depth to the situation. He may as well be Lana's personal assistant, whom she just happens to be sleeping with. By and large, he just doesn't do enough to make his presence feel relevant.

In principle, there's no reason to doubt that Lana Lang can be a compelling Superwoman. She has the personal connections, the spirit, and the desire to do the job. Within the context of this story, however, her ability to be Superwoman is essentially tied to the fate of Lois Lane. She's not being Superwoman because she feels inclined to use her new powers for the greater good, as Superman would. This story gives the impression that she's embracing this role because of Lois. That excuse may work for Peter Parker, but it doesn't work for Lana Lang.

A big part of Superman's core is that he does the right thing simply because it's the right thing. He doesn't need any other reason. That's the only real reason that matters. Superwoman #1 sets up all the right dynamics to continue that legacy, but Superwoman #2 just throws it away, trying to create other reasons that only undermine this ideal.

In the end, the intent of Superwoman #2 is commendable, trying to set Lana Lang up as Superwoman and establishing the necessary factors. The results, however, are shallow and stale. It also gives the impression that post-Flashpoint Lois Lane was a character that DC Comics couldn't wait to get rid of. Now that there's another Lois in place, who perfectly complies the decades-old traditions that dare not be broken, the concept of Lois Lane being Superwoman gets thrown away. It's not just a missed opportunity. It feels downright petty.

The heart and soul of what makes a Superman comic what it is just isn't here. It didn't necessarily die with post-Flashpoint Lois Lane, but there isn't much effort to salvage those elements, either. Lana Lang may still develop into a viable Superwoman. She just has a lot of forces working against her and even the strength of Superman may not be enough to overcome them.

4

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
8
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image