David, time has proven that, as it turns out, Barry was not intrinsic to the concept of an ongoing Flash series. Just the fact that he took over the title from Jay showed that the lead character of the book was secondary to the power set and other considerations. I'm not a fan of Wally, Bart, or any of the half-dozen or so other Flashes who've shown up in the interim, but as long as another Flash is waiting in the wings, the title seems to simply move on with that character.

I hold with those who believe that Barry is the best of the Flashes, the one with the richest creative history and best possibility for imaginative future stories, but is he intrinsic to the concept of the Flash title? The evidence says "no."

Dave, it wasn't my intention to insult you personally. I am insulting a great many of the storylines and editorial decisions you've said you prefer, but that is not intended as a slam at you. You state you prefer "A." I say "A" is tedious and hollow, and you become offended that I've insulted your taste. That's unfortunate, but there isn't much to be done about it. I personally wasn't happy with the way you bragged about tweaking fans of the classic tales by mocking the Lyra Ler-Rol story, but I defended the story, and not my personal distaste for your "Gotta love it" comment.

Your definition of the triangle as being solely one thing, "Clark Wants Lois, Lois Wants Superman, Superman wants Lois to leave him be" is too narrow to describe what was lost when Dan Jurgens, writer, artist, and character-interpretation-expert extraordinaire, penned that immortal line, "Lois... Superman and me. We're the same guy." Ah, such deathless prose... So true to it's era... While it's true that classic "unrequited love" iteration of the triangle doesn't rear its head frequently outside of the earliest issues of the series, it nevertheless informs Clark's character, gives the reader a point of identification, and makes Clark a little bit more than just Superman in a suit. The issue of the identity reveal and marraige is considerably larger than just that, however.

As such, please do not be offended if I point out that you do not, in fact, seem to get the "subtext" argument. Just because different tacks were taken on the triangle over the decades does not mean that they somehow undermined or violated it's importance. That different tacks can be taken with the idea is in fact proof of the triangle's value.  
In the 1950's and 60's sexuality in mainstream comics was nullified by the powers that be, and the romantic aspect of the Superman/Clark/Lois dynamic logically suffered as a result. The triangle itself continued and was an ongoing font of situations and storylines. As long as it was there for the creators to work with, many different things could be done with it. Now it is gone, and nothing can be done with it. The series as a whole is poorer for it's loss.

The "if only she knew" became a wink at the end of the story towards the reader rather than a note of romantic longing. Nevertheless, it worked. What we've had since it's removal has not.

Impressive credentials, by the way. You certainly have read a LOT of comic books. That list, however, merely underscores that the element of Clark keeping his identity secret from Lois does not resonate with you. It apparently never has, and likely never will. If you yourself cannot find in all of those issues a story in which the triangle plays a vital role, then nothing I can point out to you is likely to suddenly trip that switch.

The nostalgia "for something that never existed" was certainly present for Jules Feiffer in his introduction to the Great Comic Book Heroes. If memory serves, (my copy looks to be one more thing I lost in the fire...) he praised the psychological insight and the wicked, convoluted set-up in which the characters could operate endlessly and never quite find relief. If "that something" never existed, then what was Feiffer describing? I believe instead that you are describing a nostalgia others have for something that is impossible for you see. That is a very different thing.

You wrote "...the Saga of Superman is about the last survivor of a doomed planet who has sworn to protect his adopted home and lives as one of the inhabitants either to maintain closeness to those he has sworn to protect or because he tends to think of himself as one of them (depending on which version we're talking about.) Keep that and it's Superman, no matter what's goingon with his love life at the time."

So we're a "Go" on the 'Philo Philpott, Billionaire Banana' idea then? Hotcha!!

Those of us who grew up with the whole picture and appreciated all of it nevertheless mourn the loss of vital components, especially when their departure makes for far less enjoyable reading in the future.

I'm a fan of the workplace rivalry as well, Dave, and find the current set-up woefully lacking specifically in this regard. When Furillo and Davenport wound up in the tub together on episodes of Hill Street Blues, the very real differences and problems between them did not disappear. They were temporarily delayed. Lois and Clark however see eye to eye on everything, and who gets the front page doesn't actually matter anymore. Their paychecks are shared. Their bylines are usually shared. Their professional standings are, for all intents and purposes, as married as they are. The work rivalry is now just so much silliness between affectionate marrieds. This is the "World According to Jim" effect I mentioned earlier. Isn't it cute how they tease? Num, num, num...

You wrote earlier about feeling the current arrangement being more fair to Lois. I preferred it when Lois routinely held her own and won victories without Clark giving up so much ground on account of how much he really, really loves her. Lois' victories, especially during the Golden Age, were largely her own. Clark had to stay on his toes and dash to telegraph offices at super-speed just to keep up with her. That is a rivalry worth reading about. The current version is just foreplay before Lois says, "Race ya to the bedroom!"

The DC crew marrying them off because they wanted to is irrelevant. They did not do so when the idea struck them because the TV show was operating along similarly self-destructive lines, albeit at a slower pace. When they finally pulled that trigger, it was in headline-grabbing concert with the "event" episode of the show. If anything, their postponement underscores the naked cash-grab mentality of scheduling it for a more financially opportune moment.

"Good job with the aliens" is what everyone says to Superman. Lois used to be a character in her own right, and not simply one more rubber stamp of approval for a character already awash in affirmation. That no one said it to Clark was another element that made that character psychologically appealing as the underdog. These days, everyone's gung-ho and winning-oriented though, so who really gives a **** about the underdog anymore? Superman's a winner, 24-7, 'cause that's the American Way, loyal Fox News viewers! Complexity's for losers...

Your mention of her teasing him for writing about himself is a thinner and far more limiting comedy "bit" than anything that resulted from the triangle when it existed. Are we really going to have cute asides about his ego in place of what was there when the series mattered?

And finally, as for "Team Lana," Dave, you're backing someone who could do THIS to another human being...? Ye Gads...!

“I am insulting a great many of the storylines and editorial decisions you've said you prefer, but that is not intended as a slam at you.”

Eh, I was probably being oversensitive.  Sorry.

“That's unfortunate, but there isn't much to be done about it. I personally wasn't happy with the way you bragged about tweaking fans of the classic tales by mocking the Lyra Ler-Rol story, but I defended the story”

Huh?  Who was mocking the story?  That’s one of my favorite Superman stories.  I did say it was evidence that (at the time) Superman’s romantic feelings toward Lois were effectively non-existent, but that had nothing to do with the quality of the story.

“As such, please do not be offended if I point out that you do not, in fact, seem to get the "subtext" argument. Just because different tacks were taken on the triangle over the decades does not mean that they somehow undermined or violated it's importance.”

I’ve heard a few arguments as to the underlying subtext of the triangle:  There’s the “Lois is so blinded by the flashiness of Superman, that she can’t see what’s right in front of her” idea.  Or the “On the surface we may seem like Clark Kent, but in reality we’re Superman, and if those we interact with could see that, then it would change their opinion of us” idea.  (I’m wording that second one wrong; hopefully it’s right enough to get the gist.)  But when time after time she DOES see what’s in front of her and he moves heaven and Earth (sometimes literally) to make her question it, then it doesn’t work.  (IMO.)  If she didn’t keep discovering the truth and it was kept at the “Clark, HOW do you keep getting the scoops” and “If only you were more like Superman” level, then I could go along with it.  But that’s not the way they handled it.

If I’m totally off on “triangle subtext,” help me out.

“The triangle itself continued and was an ongoing font of situations and storylines.  As long as it was there for the creators to work with, many different things could be done with it.”

Such as?  Maybe it would help if I understood what you mean when you think of “the triangle…”  Lois Lane’s schemes for tricking Superman into marriage was certainly fodder for a lot of stories, but that’s not the same thing as a “triangle.”  Along those lines, what you’re calling the triangle looks more to me like the “Clark/Lois/Superman” relationship in general.  They’ve done different things with THAT over the years, but from that perspective, marriage is just the latest permutation of the relationship. 

“If you yourself cannot find in all of those issues a story in which the triangle plays a vital role, then nothing I can point out to you is likely to suddenly trip that switch.”

See earlier question about triangle.  There have been good stories written with single Clark.  There have been good stories written with married Clark.  There have been stories with married Clark that would have worked just as well with single Clark and single Clark stories that would have worked just as well with married Clark.  (And you can replace the word “good” with “bad” in each of those sentences.)  But no, I don’t see single Clark as a requirement for the series and I doubt you’ll be able to convince me otherwise.  Fair enough.

“If "that something" never existed, then what was Feiffer describing? I believe instead that you are describing a nostalgia others have for something that is impossible for you see. That is a very different thing.”

Sure.  That’s why I keep asking for examples and such from the stories, rather than inferred subtext.  My copy of Feiffer’s book is in storage, and I didn’t memorize the essay, so can’t comment on that. 

I guess I could argue that commenting on subtext when we’re really talking about what TPTW felt was a marketable formula is reaching a bit, but on the other hand, there’s a reason why the formula was marketable, so it evens out.  That said, by 1971 the new staff felt the traditional formula was well played out.  I haven’t looked at sales, so I don’t know if there was external evidence to support that.  And even if sales were diving, it could easily be because Boltinoff didn’t have the same knack as Weisinger for making the formula work.

“And finally, as for "Team Lana," Dave, you're backing someone who could do THIS to another human being...? Ye Gads...!”

All of the characters did stuff they should be ashamed of in those days.  Why should Lana be any different? 

Vision and Scarlet Witch worked.
Hank and Jan worked.
Elongated Man and Sue worked.
Hawkeye and Mockingbird worked.
Hawkman and Hawkgirl worked.
Lightning Lad and Saturn Girl worked.
Reed and Sue worked.
Mr. Miracle and Big Bertha worked.
and so on.

Those marriages that ended, ended because of storytelling (divorce/
death/madness/etc) and not because marriage made any of their
stories limiting, stale or over.

Mr. Miracle and Big Bertha worked.

**********************************

Barda.  Big Barda. 

And, as far as I know, Lightning Lad and Saturn Girl are still happily married.  I believe DC un-did a lot of the idiotic things involved with them.