All this raises the issue: at what point does a character who carries the name of a specific fictional character act in such a fundamentally different way that there really is no point in naming that character "Clark Kent" or "Superman"? Essentially, the character has become an original character or another existing fictional character in all but name.
So, for example, is Superman's murdering someone more Batman or Spawn than Superman?
So what makes a character - the name or the personality? For example, could Mr. Darcy's character be swapped with James Bond's, and we'd still accept each as being the person whose name they bore simply because of the name?
(Is House the same guy as Bertie Wooster? )
Here I'm taking about major character traits as opposed to minor things that different incarnations or fanfics change - like a preference for chocolate or shooting hoops.
To give another example, I've been reading some of the comments on the Smallville Lois on TVWP. A great many posters don't like her (although they're a lot rougher on Lana ) and the reason they don't like her boils down to their feeling that she's just not "iconic" Lois Lane. (A lot of the posters there seem to think a character called Chloe is the real Lois Lane)
So that's the issue - how far can you push a character away from "iconic" and still have the reader feel that this is *still* Clark Kent. (or Mr. Darcy or Charlie Brown or... )
Now to come back to the issue of murder. Sadly, thousands of people in the North America are murdered every year. People lose their loved ones - that's a horrible thing to have to deal with. Yet most survivors don't go out, take justice into their own hands, and kill the murderer.
So why would Superman's loss be any more tragic than say a mother whose child has been murdered?
Then the question of the "trade off" . Does the fact the S. has saved so many lives give him a couple of "free kill" cards?
There's a quantity issue too, implied in Ann's question - 1000 lives count more than 1 life. Yes, of course, but, on the other hand, no never. After all, he's only killed one person, so give the guy a break. We'd take the issue more seriously if he'd killed maybe 10 guys. I'm not sure I buy that from an ethical point of view.
So making Superman a "Killer" is a real challenge for any writer.
Not just the fact that he killed, but the viciousness of the "kill" itself has to be explained. As well, the author has to go back and set up the psychological history of the character so that we believe that because of what we've seen of him in the past, he is capable of murdering someone. Context is crucial too - there has to be absolutely no other option than to kill the other person.
Anyway, some rambling thoughts. This is such a huge ethical issue that Ann has raised.
c.
