This Lois must not be a very good investigative journalist...

[bigblueplanet]

I think the key (with regard to the differences in our opinions) lies in this sentence.

There's really very little difference between the two, IMO.

I’ll (hopefully) get to that later.

In what sense? Do you have any examples?

■ from Idol section;
Why did Lois only mention the sex aspects of her dream to the therapist?

■ and the next episode, Pandora;
“I thought I could take down Zod BY MY OWN.” “You know I’m the BEST CHANCE for getting back that ring.” All this conversation occurred right after Lois heard how Zod wanted Clark to join the *flying aliens* army and how Tess also tried to persuade Clark to do so. Why is that if he were just a Kansas farmer boy or a basement reporter? hmm, Lois? On top of that, all this unmistakable clues, right after she almost nailed him in Idol!

I saw many folks being not happy about how Clark still kept lying to Lois even in this AU future but to me, Clark keeping his secret is more believable than Lois not having a light bulb moment - just like Jimmy did in Identity.

Speaking of Jimmy, when he found out Clark’s secret in Doomsday, he said, “That whole 'you're here one second and then you're not'? You took a bullet and the next day you were fine. I mean it's like you're some kind of super ... guy." This, of course, was also constantly witnessed by Lois as well, even more so since she has been working side by side with Clark every day. In this show, Lois looks much less of an investigative reporter than Jimmy was. And he wasn’t even a reporter!

Personally, I thought Lois was shown to possess Pulitzer Prize worthy skills in Absolute Justice.

Yeah, she pulled the pieces together pretty fast in that episode, didn’t she? That’s why I never complained about the lack of screen time for my favorite characters - even for Clark. In this show, I believe the screen time is a curse, not a blessing. Offscreenville seems like such a wonderful place.

I just don't see how love and respect for a character translates into doubting her. I can understand criticizing the writing for leaving something ambiguous, but we all choose how to deal with that ambiguity. Therefore, to choose to see the worst in Lois when one could just as easily see the best in her, seems to choose a route that expresses less love and respect for the character. That said, I don't doubt the actual love and respect anyone has for Lois or any character. Rather, I question the logic used to interpret ambiguous writing when it comes to the character.

As usual, you (general you) don’t have to agree with me about anything but here I’ll try to explain you where I’m coming from.

IMO, the big part of what makes Lois (or any other character) worse or better is the writing - from characterization to plot. When I look back – say, 10 years from now - at my Smallville DVD box sets on my book shelf, do I look at them and recall “Oh geez, I remember how those SV writers were making their characters so ambiguous!” or will I be thinking “Oh my, SV’s characters were so ambiguous!”. Me? Definitely the latter and I’m pretty sure that I won’t even remember the names of SV’s show runners & writers by then. All what I’ll remember is how these characters were depicted in this series. I elaborate further in 9 paragraphs later.

Right, you're choosing to criticize the writers, and not the character.

Actually, no. I am criticizing both. Lois is a brilliant reporter in one episode and then she is clueless in the next one. It hurts the character and her reporting credibility and in the end --- the character as a whole, imo.

Therefore, we can complain that there was ambiguity, but not that the ambiguity inherently makes Lois look bad.

In your opinion because no matter how these things are the faults of the writers, it does make the character look bad in my opinion.

We, the viewers, decide how we choose to interpret the ambiguity that the writers have mistakenly given us. I'm not giving the writers the benefit of the doubt here, I'm giving Lois the benefit of the doubt. Criticize the writers all you want, and I'll join you, but there's nothing in show canon to support the accusation that Lois does not know that Zod is the CEO of RAO.

What if I say there is? We both agreed that all of us interpret each scene of the show differently. You keep using the word “choose”, but I’m not deliberately trying to choose anything. I get what I get from what I see. That’s all. And if I didn’t get it, ….. is it my fault?

I'm choosing to believe that she does based on what evidence is out there and until it's proven otherwise. Usually the line between the writing for a character and the character itself is rather blurry, but in a case like this, I don't think it is. Lois didn't do anything in Conspiracy to show that she didn't know that Zod was the CEO of RAO, therefore she should be innocent until proven guilty.

And Lois didn't do anything in Conspiracy to show that she did know that Zod was the CEO of RAO, either. In fact, the way she said “But still, something doesn’t quite add up.” translates me as she didn’t. That’s what I got from the show.

ETA: I re-watch the scene and now I know more clearly why I got the impression Lois didn’t know. She said,“That’s the thing about the hero. No matter how brightly you shine the light on them, they always want to stay in the shadows!” Zod wasn’t exactly staying the shadow as the CEO of RAO – a hero figure (for people in Metropolis) who built the “Towers of Tomorrow”. JMO

Feel free to condemn Lois without all the evidence, if that's what you're saying you want to do for her own "good."

No one here is bashing her for the sake of bashing. In fact, most of the folks who post comments in this thread are Lois’s fan. Please don’t take our critique to heart but instead, maybe you can search for the truth in it? I think we all have them – in both positive and negative opinions.

If Lois’s fans are complaining that she is not consistently depicted as a good reporter, maybe there's something not working? I would think so. YMMV

I'm genuinely curious, though. What about you? Why giving Lois “the benefit of the doubt” would do any good for the character in general? I did read the rest of your paragraph but I still don’t understand how the character can take a benefit from it. If you say this is how you roll because you enjoy the show much more in this way, then I totally understand. But what about Lois, the character? Will she be benefited from it in a long run?

Sure, so criticize the writing for its ambiguity, and not Lois for making a mistake or being ignorant of something we don't know for sure she is actually ignorant of just yet. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm saying Lois doesn't automatically look worse because of ambiguity, since it's up to the audience to decide how to deal with that ambiguity.

Why do we have to “deal” with the ambiguity, though? Wouldn’t it be much better if we – who are the fans of Lois at least – can all agree how she is a brilliant reporter?

Again you're talking about writers getting the benefit of the doubt while I was talking about giving LOIS the benefit of the doubt.

Again. This is where we are fundamentally different. For me, it’s the same thing. And your mileage clearly varies.

In my previous post, I gave you an example of Chuck Austen as to how he was writing Lois horribly. Yes, the fans were criticizing the writer but what he wrote became “canon” in the Mythos (unless until retconned), no matter how we’d like to erase it from our memory – just like AoS is now canon in the SV series and so is Henry Jimmy Olsen. It’s all part of the Superman canon right now and will be remembered as such for generation after generation. These incarnations will be recognized for their action & traits of the characters, and NOT the writers who are responsible behind it. You know what I mean?

You can advocate Lois all you want for the ambiguity, but maybe you’ll realize one day that it will come back to bite the character’s butt as much as (though I’d say “more than”) the writers. If I’m wrong, then I’m more than happy for the character. After all, you advocate Lois and I criticize Lois for the same reason. We both care for the character.

Write a letter to the producers in the Spoiler forum telling them to be less ambiguous in their writing in order to effect the change that you seek.

Oh, I do that constantly but directly to the DC. I want them to strengthen on the so-called “restrictions” since I feel like there’re actually none (especially for Clark). Also that’s why I keep posting my reviews in the episode discussion forum nowadays. I feel like that’s where they look at when figuring out what worked and what didn’t in each episode. I mean, IF they look at it. Just my hunch.

All I said was that I respect Lois in such a way that I won't condemn HER without all the evidence.

So, are you saying you’re happy about the way this Lois has been written in this season? No gripe at all? If your answer is yes, then more power to you. Me, on the other hand, I believe Lois can do much better than that. We can agree to disagree.

.

[Supsfan]

■ from Idol section;
Why did Lois only mention the sex aspects of her dream to the therapist?

■ and the next episode, Pandora;
“I thought I could take down Zod BY MY OWN.” “You know I’m the BEST CHANCE for getting back that ring.” All this conversation occurred right after Lois heard how Zod wanted Clark to join the *flying aliens* army and how Tess also tried to persuade Clark to do so. Why is that if he were just a Kansas farmer boy or a basement reporter? hmm, Lois? On top of that, all this unmistakable clues, right after she almost nailed him in Idol!

I saw many folks being not happy about how Clark still kept lying to Lois even in this AU future but to me, Clark keeping his secret is more believable than Lois not having a light bulb moment - just like Jimmy did in Identity.

Speaking of Jimmy, when he found out Clark’s secret in Doomsday, he said, “That whole 'you're here one second and then you're not'? You took a bullet and the next day you were fine. I mean it's like you're some kind of super ... guy." This, of course, was also constantly witnessed by Lois as well, even more so since she has been working side by side with Clark every day. In this show, Lois looks much less of an investigative reporter than Jimmy was. And he wasn’t even a reporter!.

If should be pointed out what happened to Lois in Pandora happened to her before Saviour, so she was reliving memories basically not living in the moment. Anything that happened to her in S9 she wasn't up to par in those sequences.

[bigblueplanet]

If should be pointed out what happened to Lois in Pandora happened to her before Saviour, so she was reliving memories basically not living in the moment. Anything that happened to her in S9 she wasn't up to par in those sequences.

True. But Stiletto did happen before Saviour. Plastique, too. There're many many others.

[Supsfan]

True. But Stiletto did happen before Saviour. Plastique, too. There're many many others.

But your arguement specifically pointed out her experiences in Idol with Pandora being the next episode as if she should have put one and one based on that. If there was a specific moment in either of those episodes(Stiletto or Plastique) why not use those instead of the Idol one which basically is disqualified because the Lois flashbacks in Pandora happened before Idol aired if we were doing a timeline.

There was nothing in Plastique that I can remember with her putting 1 and 1 together that Clark is the Blur and in the case of Stiletto, Lois seen Clark get shot and "injured" because of it.

[bigblueplanet]

But your arguement specifically pointed out her experiences in Idol with Pandora being the next episode as if she should have put one and one based on that. There was nothing in Plastique that I can remember with her putting 1 and 1 together that Clark is the Blur and in the case of Stiletto, Lois seen Clark get shot and "injured" because of it.

I saw many folks being not happy about how Clark still kept lying to Lois even in this AU future but to me, Clark keeping his secret is more believable than Lois not having a light bulb moment - just like Jimmy did in Identity.

Speaking of Jimmy, when he found out Clark’s secret in Doomsday, he said, “That whole 'you're here one second and then you're not'? You took a bullet and the next day you were fine. I mean it's like you're some kind of super ... guy." This, of course, was also constantly witnessed by Lois as well, even more so since she has been working side by side with Clark every day. In this show, Lois looks much less of an investigative reporter than Jimmy was. And he wasn’t even a reporter!

My arguement wasn't specifically pointed out her experiences in Idol with Pandora as I wrote above. It's the character continuity in this show I'm talking about.

[Supsfan]

My arguement wasn't specifically pointed out her experiences in Idol with Pandora as I wrote above. It's the character continuity in this show I'm talking about.

But you specifically used a point that was false in Pandora to try make a point(ie that Lois should have used her knowledge from Idol in her flashback sequences, which she couldn't have because the flashback happened between Doomsday and Savoir). I am just trying to point out the problem with making that part of your arguement.

As for Lois not noticing, weither you like it or not, Lois being completely oblivious to Clark and his secret is part of the mythos for 70 years. Now one could fanwank she is either galactically stupid(as per Tempus on the old L&C show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Nov7vSkmU) or anything else they want(ie that love is blind as HG Wells put in the same episode for instance) why she doesn't notice, but it doesn't change the fact it part of the story.

[bigblueplanet]

But you specifically used a point that was false in Pandora to try make a point(ie that Lois should have used her knowledge from Idol in her flashback sequences, which she couldn't have because the flashback happened between Doomsday and Savoir). I am just trying to point out the problem with making that part of your arguement.

So you dismiss my whole argument? Btw, I understood your point. No need to repeat it.

I was waiting to see Lois would get her light bulb moment in Pandora AU future because of so many WTH moments she experienced with Clark ever since she met him in Crusade.


ETA; In response to your question wrt Plastique.

Lois; "So did you, Houdini. You're there one minute and gone the next."

[Supsfan]

Lois; "So did you, Houdini. You're there one minute and gone the next."

I basically have to go back to every incarnation of Lois was blind to Clark Kent living a double life. Like that aspect of the story or not the show is trying to line up to that in some form.

One can put the negative spin on it and say she is galactically stupid(like the Tempus clip from the old L&C show I posted above) or one can put the positive spin on it and find subtle charm in the fact that Lois is the only character on the show who accepted Clark for who he is, and while she may be blind to the obvious in the case of Clark, it's a testiment to her feelings towards him as a person that she turns that aspect of her personality off when he around(ie the HG Wells arguement)

[rebecavaldez]

otherwise, she would have discovered that Clark's friend Zod was chairman and CEO of RAO Inc.


In Crossfire, Zod reveals that he is Chairman and CEO of RAO Inc. during Tess's 3D presentation of the solar towers

In Disciple, Lois meets Zod, and Zod indicates he is a friend of Clark's

In Persuasion, we see Lois and Clark investigating the site of the RAO towers, and Lois suspects they are up to something (indicating she is doing an investigation) - I guess she just forgot to check on who the CEO is...

In Conspiracy, Zod tells Lois he is an FBI man...she investigates and finds out he is not listed with any of the agencies...but still does not make the connection to RAO


That's some hard nosed investigating there Lois...

...and this coming from a big fan of ED's portrayal of Lois Lane


Come on writers...gotta be a little less sloppy

I have to admit I thought of this...but decided to over look it!

[Supsfan]

I have to admit I thought of this...but decided to over look it!

I think it basically comes down to sloppy writing. We have to remember these are the same writers that had those solar towers go up in a matter of 3-4 months. lol

The only real saving grace is we never seen Lois meet with CEO Zod in any form, so we could assume he never showed his mug in person(at least till persuassion) or that he actually used the name Zod in public.

I think it's a case if you go through the entire series you can find a series of events for many characters doing stupid stuff that make no sense if you try to think it out logically that you have to fanwank somehow to look good.

[bigblueplanet]

I basically have to go back to every incarnation of Lois was blind to Clark Kent living a double life. Like that aspect of the story or not the show is trying to line up to that in some form.

One can put the negative spin on it and say she is galactically stupid(like the Tempus clip from the old L&C show I posted above) or one can put the positive spin on it and find subtle charm in the fact that Lois is the only character on the show who accepted Clark for who he is, and while she may be blind to the obvious in the case of Clark, it's a testiment to her feelings towards him as a person that she turns that aspect of her personality off when he around(ie the HG Wells arguement)

I’m well aware of other incarnations (from '90s onward), especially LnC.

Even THLois figured it out by a “touch” after she’s known him for two years. If you don’t think anything’s wrong with the way this Lois is written, then, all what I can say is more power to you.

[Supsfan]

Even THLois figured it out by a “touch” after she’s known him for two years. If you don’t think anything’s wrong with the way this Lois is written, then, all what I can say is more power to you.

I have problems with the way alot of characters are written at times on the show(mainly Clark Kent) but I am not going to put the most negative spin on any character to try tear them down and try pass it off as if it was fact about that character. Anything I do have issue with I blame the people who deserve it the most(ie producers/writers)

Even THLois figured it out by a “touch” after she’s known him for two years. If you don’t think anything’s wrong with the way this Lois is written, then, all what I can say is more power to you.

THLois had an advantage SVLois doesn't have, she actually got to see Superman in person and it took her 2 years to put one and one together. SVLois just gets to see Clark run off and dissappear. As I said above though you either accept the fact the Lois is clueless to Clark's secret is part of the story or you don't like that aspect of the Clois(from all media) relationship. Some do, some don't.

In the case of Lois not figuring out the secret(much like many other incarnation of Lois) it's a case you either suspend disbelief or hate it. On a show with meteor freaks, aliens, magic, etc. I find it best to suspend disbelief for the most part or my mind would go insane how wrong everything is on it.

[colenallen]

If you re not happy with the way Lois is written - [MOD EDIT]

[bigblueplanet]

It’s getting really late where I live so this is the last question/post from me but;
where did I do this in my comments?

I am not going to put the most negative spin on any character to try tear them down and try pass it off as if it was fact about that character.

[ginevrakent]

■ from Idol section; Why did Lois only mention the sex aspects of her dream to the therapist?

According to the episode, Lois did mention the NC-17 violence part of her dreams to Dr. Evans. She chose to focus on sex part of the dream because it was interfering with her work. It was the first thing on her mind at the time she came to speak with Dr. Evans. As a counselor myself, I work with some students who have legitimate horrors in their life, but sometimes they just want to talk to me about the problems they're having with their friends or their boyfriends. Lois speaking to Dr. Evans about the sex in her dreams versus the violence in her dreams has nothing to do with her investigative ability. It has everything to do with how one part of her dreams was affecting her the day she went to see her therapist and the events occurring in her own life that made addressing the sex part of her dream more urgent. Had Lois not passed out the day after her third session with Dr. Evans and had her memories not been erased, I would think she would have moved on to discussing new topics.

Secondly, and more importantly, Lois had absolutely no reason to believe her dreams had anything to do with her three weeks of blocked memory. Lois doesn't know about time travel and she doesn't know what a Legion ring does. All she knew was that she was having dreams about things that clearly did not happen: Chloe was not dead, the sun was not red, there were no solar towers in the middle of Metropolis, etc. To Lois, everything in her dreams were just dreams and not a reflection of her current reality.

■ and the next episode, Pandora;
“I thought I could take down Zod BY MY OWN.” “You know I’m the BEST CHANCE for getting back that ring.” All this conversation occurred right after Lois heard how Zod wanted Clark to join the *flying aliens* army and how Tess also tried to persuade Clark to do so. Why is that if he were just a Kansas farmer boy or a basement reporter? hmm, Lois? On top of that, all this unmistakable clues, right after she almost nailed him in Idol!

Lois didn't question Chloe's clubhouse or her ability to lead a resistance either. It seems as though Lois simply accepted the fact that a year into an alien invasion each of the people closest to her had changed dramatically. The reason Clark was viewed as the best chance at getting back the ring was because of his history with Zod.

I'm really not understanding the clues you're talking about in Idol. The Lois in Pandora never experienced what the Lois in Idol experienced. Furthermore, the Lois in Idol never recovered her full memories of what happened in Pandora so she didn't have the clues from that timeline either. As soon as her memories did come flooding back to her at the end of Idol, they were erased. At no point did Lois possess both sets of clues in order to make the connection you believe she should have made.

I saw many folks being not happy about how Clark still kept lying to Lois even in this AU future but to me, Clark keeping his secret is more believable than Lois not having a light bulb moment - just like Jimmy did in Identity.

Why because she accepted that Clark tried to fight Zod and because he was considered the best person to confront him when the towers were disabled because of his history with him? Why is it so difficult to believe that a human Clark Kent would have tried to fight Zod? Lois has always known Clark was a hero and she had seen him go up against villains like Lex Luthor in the past. It is not surprising that Clark would have fought Zod prior to Zod getting his powers when the towers were built because both men, according to her, would have been mere mortals then and they would be mere mortals again once the virus disabled the towers. Clark is the ideal candidate to fight Zod because of their shared history.

Speaking of Jimmy, when he found out Clark’s secret in Doomsday, he said, “That whole 'you're here one second and then you're not'? You took a bullet and the next day you were fine. I mean it's like you're some kind of super ... guy." This, of course, was also constantly witnessed by Lois as well, even more so since she has been working side by side with Clark every day. In this show, Lois looks much less of an investigative reporter than Jimmy was. And he wasn’t even a reporter!

If you recall, Jimmy witnessed Clark healing quickly in Stiletto, but it wasn't until he literally saw Clark's face heal in front of him that he made the connection. I'll tell you what, if Lois witnesses Clark instantly recover from a fatal wound seconds after it is inflicted, I will agree with you. This particular example, however, doesn't work for me because Jimmy was no closer to believing Clark was the RBB in Stiletto than Lois was in that episode. He had to have the proof staring at him in the face in order to believe it. Since Lois reacted similarly in Idol when Clark called her and the voice changer wavered, I'd say Lois has a good chance of coming to the same conclusion Jimmy did in Doomsday if something similar ever happened again.

Actually, no. I am criticizing both. Lois is a brilliant reporter in one episode and then she is clueless in the next one. It hurts the character and her credibility of being a brilliant reporter and in the end --- the character as a whole, imo.

Lois was not shown to be clueless, though. She wasn't shown to have a definitive view on Zod's identity at all. If she had done some digging on Zod to determine his FBI status and had said something like: "Can you believe it? Here I thought Zod was just an FBI agent, but it turns out he's also the CEO of RAO. I wonder why I didn't recognize his name before," then I would agree with you. She didn't. At no point did Lois confirm that she did not know Zod was the CEO of RAO. Consequently, her character isn't damaged and her credibility remains intact.

In your opinion because no matter how these things are the faults of the writers, it does make the character look bad in my opinion.

Exactly. Despite the ambiguous writing that does not point to Lois knowing or not knowing Zod is the CEO of RAO, you are choosing to believe she doesn't know. You are choosing to believe she incompetent and clueless. I'm choosing to not pass judgment at all until there is some kind of clear cut canon confirming Lois did not know and continues to remain ignorant of Zod's role at RAO, Inc. I wish the writing in Conspiracy had settled the issue, but it didn't, and I do fault the writers for that oversight. The character of Lois, on the other hand, cannot be condemned for the ambiguous writing because of the very fact that it was ambiguous.

What if I say there is? We both agreed that all of us interpret each scene of the show differently. You keep using the word “choose”, but I’m not deliberately trying to choose anything. I get what I get from what I see. That’s all. And if I didn’t get it, ….. is it my fault?

Well, I wouldn't say it's your fault, but I would say is that if your natural reaction to ambiguity is to see only the negative aspects of Lois, then it indicates a negative bias towards the character.

And Lois didn't do anything in Conspiracy to show that she did know that Zod was the CEO of RAO, either. In fact, the way she said “But still, something doesn’t quite add up.” translates me as she didn’t. That’s what I got from the show.

As you point out, Lois didn't do anything in Conspiracy to show that she did know and she didn't say anything to show that she didn't. Saying that something about Zod doesn't add up means just that: something doesn't add up. Do we know what isn't adding up to Lois? Do we know for a fact that Zod being a CEO and and FBI agent isn't part of what Lois is referring to when she says something doesn't add up? No, we don't. We don't know one way or the other because it was ambiguous, because it was left open to interpretation, and it is up to the viewer to interpret what Lois meant by that statement. If one's natural bias is to believe Lois is a clueless idiot, then I'm guessing that is how one would interpret that scene. I think it sucks that the scene is ambiguous and open to interpretation, but it is.

ETA: I re-watch the scene and now I know more clearly why I got the impression Lois didn’t know. She said,“That’s the thing about the hero. No matter how brightly you shine the light on them, they always want to stay in the shadows!” Zod wasn’t exactly staying the shadow as the CEO of RAO – a hero figure (for people in Metropolis) who built the “Towers of Tomorrow”. JMO

I interpreted that comment differently. First of all, Lois already knows of one CEO who is also a hero who stays in the shadows. His name is Oliver Queen. Second of all, Lois is specifically referring to the fact that Zod was refusing to comment on his role as an FBI agent in taking down Dr. Chisholm for the article she was writing. This is no different, in my eyes, than Tom Welling refusing to comment on the rumors he once stopped a mugging. Tom is in the public eye because of his profession, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wants a hero's spotlight shining down on him. Finally, since the show spent no time at all playing up the idea that Zod was being viewed as a citizen hero because of his towers, I have a hard time seeing that as a possible explanation.

No one here is bashing her for the sake of bashing. In fact, most of the folks who post comments in this thread are Lois’s fan. Please don’t take our critique to heart but instead, maybe you can search for the truth in it? I think we all have them – in both positive and negative opinions.

So because I won't give credence to your condemnation of Lois for not knowing Zod was the CEO of RAO when it wasn't shown either way, I'm somehow disregarding the truth? The truth according to whom? You, the other Lois fans who have posted? I've said repeatedly that the truth I've seen in the criticisms was that it was poor writing, but I cannot accept that Lois without a doubt didn't know Zod was the CEO of RAO as the TRUTH, because it's not. It's an opinion.

I see the truth in bashing the writers. I am equally unappreciative of their obsession with ambiguity. However, critiquing a character for something that we still do not know for a fact she does not know doesn't sit well with me. There is an assumption of truth when there is none. The only truth, in this case, is show canon. Show canon is ambiguous and neither your interpretations or mine can be verified as truth. Ultimately, what we're left with is bias. In this case, my bias leads me to being more positive towards Lois and yours leads you to a more negative view of the character. I don't presume to know which one of us is right nor do I presume to know what the writers intended to say about Lois on this particular issue when they wrote Conspiracy. The bottom line: I admit I do not know the truth. Everything else is left up to individual interpretations that are influenced by personal bias.

If Lois’s fans are complaining that she is not consistently depicted as a good reporter, maybe there's something not working? I would think so. YMMV

I'm not seeing these kinds of complaints. I see a few here and there, but more often than not complaints aren't about the quality of her reporting but the amount of time the show devotes to Lois in reporter mode. Perhaps something is not working in terms of writing, but for this particular episode, there is no basis for adopting either a positive or negative view of the character. If someone comes away from the episode with a negative view of the character because of the writing, that's their business, but when you actually look at the text of the episode, there's no definitive answer.

I'm genuinely curious, though. What about you? Why giving Lois “the benefit of the doubt” would do any good for the character in general? I did read the rest of your paragraph but I still don’t understand how the character can take a benefit from it. If you say this is how you roll because you enjoy the show much more in this way, then I totally understand. But what about Lois, the character? Will she be benefited from it in a long run?

I don't see my interpretation of scenes, episodes, and characters as actually having an effect on anyone other than myself. My thoughts are mine alone, and they are not expressed in this forum as a public service or as advice for the Smallville writers. I don't approach viewing the show as if I'm a judge on American Idol or Project Runway. I don't presume to have any authority or influence in these matters. I approach my interpretation of the show based on what occurs on the show. In other words, when ambiguity occurs in the narrative it would be like me judging a singer whose microphone wasn't working or a designer whose outfit I didn't see because the lights go off in the studio. That does not produce fair or accurate criticism, in my opinion. It's fair and accurate to complain about the microphone not working or the lights going off in a studio, but not the singer or designer's talent.

Why do we have to “deal” with the ambiguity, though? Wouldn’t it be much better if we – who are the fans of Lois at least – can all agree how she is a brilliant reporter?

It would be better, and I would prefer less ambiguity too. I'm just filling in the blanks left by the ambiguity in such a way that I can still view Lois as a brilliant reporter (or at least on her way, since she's on a journey too). Blanks are blanks. They are like a blank page in a book that we each fill in based on our personal biases and ways of thinking. If Lois was on trial, and it just so happens that (as corrupt as it might be) the jury was filled with fans of Lois Lane, I believe this instance of "Did Lois know that Zod was the CEO of RAO?" would not be sufficient evidence for that jury to convict Lois as not "a brilliant reporter." Indeed, if this episode was brought up in a court of law as the case of Lois Fans v. Lois Lane, The jury of Lois fans would have come to a consensus that Lois be acquitted of the charge of not showing the traits of a "brilliant reporter" based on the ambiguity of the evidence presented.

Again. This is where we are fundamentally different. For me, it’s the same thing. And your mileage clearly varies.

Yes, my mileage varies. In circumstances where there is no ambiguity I think it makes sense to criticize the character and the individuals who wrote her. When there is ambiguity, I feel that while it is fair to blame the writers, it is unfair to blame the character for something she may or may not have done.

In my previous post, I gave you an example of Chuck Austen as to how he was writing Lois horribly. Yes, the fans were criticizing the writer but what he wrote became “canon” in the Mythos (unless until retconned), no matter how we’d like to erase it from our memory – just like AoS is now canon in the SV series and so is Henry Jimmy Olsen. It’s all part of the Superman canon right now and will be remembered as such for generation after generation. These incarnations will be recognized for their action & traits of the characters, and NOT the writers who are responsible behind it. You know what I mean?

I get what you mean about voicing concerns to writers to prevent poor writing from becoming canon. What I don't get is how what happened in Conspiracy fits into that model. I could understand complaining about what Lois did to get her scoop on the Blur in Stiletto because there's unambiguous proof that Lois' intent was to publish a fake story. I do not understand labeling what was left ambiguous in Conspiracy as just as much of an obvious blunder on Lois' part.

You can advocate Lois all you want for the ambiguity, but maybe you’ll realize one day that it will come back to bite the character’s butt as much as (though I’d say “more than”) the writers. If I’m wrong, then I’m more than happy for the character. After all, you advocate Lois and I criticize Lois for the same reason. We both care for the character.

How will it "bite" Lois in the butt? Complaining about the ambiguity in the writing would address the issue of the writers being more clear about what Lois knows or doesn't know or what she's shown to investigate or not investigate.

Oh, I do that constantly but directly to the DC. I want them to strengthen on the so-called “restrictions” since I feel like there’re actually none (especially for Clark). Also that’s why I keep posting my reviews in the episode discussion forum nowadays. I feel like that’s where they look at when figuring out what worked and what didn’t in each episode. I mean, IF they look at it. Just my hunch.

Good for you. I like reading your reviews and I'd love for DC to handle the restrictions differently.

So, are you saying you’re happy about the way this Lois has been written in this season? No gripe at all? If your answer is yes, then more power to you. Me, on the other hand, I believe Lois can do much better than that. We can agree to disagree..

I don't know how you could possibly glean from my opinions on Lois in Conspiracy that I have no gripes about her characterization this season. I realize you put this supposition on your part in the form of a question, but that's quite a generalization to make. For the record, if you must know, I do have some criticisms for Lois this season. I'll provide a list of my complaints via PM, if you like, because this really isn't the place for them. I'm not sure what you mean by "Lois can do much better than that," since I don't know what the "that" signifies. You'll have to be more specific.

Otherwise, I'd say that I too believe that Lois can do and be better in the sense that I have a tremendous amount of love for her, have have high expectations of her, and have a great deal of faith in her. That is why when there isn't any ambiguity about an action of her's of which I disapprove, I don't mind stating it. For instance, I wasn't too fond of her kissing Jeff in Warrior. All I've been saying is that in cases of ambiguity, like this one in Conspiracy, I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt. If you don't, that's fine. As you say, "more power to you."