Fandom is wacky: Smallville edition
Oct. 5th, 2006 03:39 amSo, I've been reading the TWoP boards for Smallville (which is kinda crazy, but I started going back over there for... Battlestar Galactica and the Supernatural boards are good (though the first season recaps of the show suck -- second season is looking up, because they're being written by the guy who wrote the recap for the pilot and not the Supernatural-hating hack that recapped the rest of the season... dude, at least try to be amusing when you hate)) and ran across this theory called 'Chlois'.
Which baffles me. Did this theory exist back in season three (which is the last time that I visited the Smallville boards)? I don't remember it, though the Chloe-worship is... familiar.
( Wherein Lois Lane is... *not* Lois Lane, apparently. )
The comics are not the movies are not Lois and Clark is not Smallville. There's pre-Crisis and post-Crisis. Silver and Gold Age. Superman Returns and The Adventures of Superman. All different, but all with a few things in common. Superman. Clark Kent. Lois Lane. A little later, Lex Luthor.
Clark and Lois, though, first and always.
Also, I seem to feel the same protectiveness towards Lois that I feel towards Buffy and Rose. That is, I feel that they're strong female characters that I would feel honored to be anything like, so I have a shockingly limited amount of patience for dismissiveness towards them. Not criticism in general, just that particular brand of condescending criticism where I'm told that what I see as strength is really the cold-hearted, smug bitchiness of women who are getting 'above their places' (Want to make my blood boil in ten seconds or less? Mention that someone, particularly a female someone, needs to be 'put in her place'.). When Rose is dismissed as a stupid shopgirl or Buffy is called a heartless bitch or people call SV's Lois various hideously sexist terms and make everything all about her body (And her *omg* huge breasts, which just comes across as hypocritical when they're cooing over "Chloevage" every other post. I guess breasts are only okay if they're Chloe's.), I feel true feminist rage.
Which baffles me. Did this theory exist back in season three (which is the last time that I visited the Smallville boards)? I don't remember it, though the Chloe-worship is... familiar.
( Wherein Lois Lane is... *not* Lois Lane, apparently. )
The comics are not the movies are not Lois and Clark is not Smallville. There's pre-Crisis and post-Crisis. Silver and Gold Age. Superman Returns and The Adventures of Superman. All different, but all with a few things in common. Superman. Clark Kent. Lois Lane. A little later, Lex Luthor.
Clark and Lois, though, first and always.
Also, I seem to feel the same protectiveness towards Lois that I feel towards Buffy and Rose. That is, I feel that they're strong female characters that I would feel honored to be anything like, so I have a shockingly limited amount of patience for dismissiveness towards them. Not criticism in general, just that particular brand of condescending criticism where I'm told that what I see as strength is really the cold-hearted, smug bitchiness of women who are getting 'above their places' (Want to make my blood boil in ten seconds or less? Mention that someone, particularly a female someone, needs to be 'put in her place'.). When Rose is dismissed as a stupid shopgirl or Buffy is called a heartless bitch or people call SV's Lois various hideously sexist terms and make everything all about her body (And her *omg* huge breasts, which just comes across as hypocritical when they're cooing over "Chloevage" every other post. I guess breasts are only okay if they're Chloe's.), I feel true feminist rage.